So much for "there was no reason to invade":
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
relevance...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
>
>
I notice that similar posts have appeared in other usenet groups (OT, of
course). Different authors. Nothing official, or in the popular press.
Can't even find a mention on Drudge.
If this were indeed a "primary source" (as I read it, the General only
claims second-hand knowledge) and our threat of attack resulted in the
scattering of chemical and biological weapons throughout the Mideast, I
can't imagine how this can help the administration. Or reduce the peril
of such weapons falling into terrorists' hands. If Mr. Daneliuk's claim
is true, then it deals a disastrous blow to the claim that the
administration is competent to protect us from chemical or biological
attack. Why were we unable to contain and destroy those weapons, Mr.
Daneliuk? Poor intelligence, poor planning, lack of resources? Or was
it Clinton's fault?
Dale Scroggins
So are we. Stay where you are.
"Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
> I'm so glad I dont live in America.
About the best case you can make is it might have caused $3.00/gal gas
sooner than it would have otherwise occurred, but probably not by much.
There is no new petroleum being made, or if there is, on a geological time
scale. We are pumping the planet dry. When gas gets expensive enough,
economic incentives will alternatives
"hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
> come "almighty
> close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a
> material
> and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..."
>
> To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how
> that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that
> caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do
> so.
>
> H
>
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
>Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>relevance...
>
Another example of your grasping at justification straws. A newspaper
article is not evidence of anything. Most of the single-sources that
were used to justify the war were wrong, or lying for various reasons;
what makes General Sada any more trustworthy?
And why does the opinion of a christian NGO matter as to the veracity
of the General?
scott
todd wrote:
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>"carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>So are we. Stay where you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
>>>>>
>>>>>witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
>>>>>Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
>>>>>Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
>>>>>his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
>>>>>thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of
>>>"testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported
>>>on ABC News.
>>>
>>
>>Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster
>>was
>>trying to give. He "stated" on Fox News. Lots of difference. I don't
>>generally watch TV news unless it's on local events, but I have tried Fox
>>News from time to time. The others are piss poor, and Fox News beats them
>>for lousiness hands down.
>
>
> tes·ti·fy (tst-f)
> v. intr.
> 1.. To make a declaration of truth or fact under oath; submit testimony:
> witnesses testifying before a grand jury.
> 2.. To express or declare a strong belief, especially to make a
> declaration of faith.
> 3.. To make a statement based on personal knowledge in support of an
> asserted fact; bear witness: the exhilaration of weightlessness, to which
> many astronauts have testified.
> 4.. To serve as evidence: wreckage that testifies to the ferocity of the
> storm.
> I wish I had your clairvoyance to know that he was using the first
> definition and not the third.
>
> todd
>
>
>
The General's statements did not meet your third definition. He had no
personal knowledge of the events he described; he was repeating what
others had told him. It doesn't take clairvoyance to determine that
"testify" was the wrong word, chosen for reasons other than accuracy.
Dale Scroggins
"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Y'know, there are some folks who'll even lie then....
>
Bill Clinton comes to mind.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
I indicated a couple of years ago that if you warn a terrorist government 6
months in advance that you are going to invade and they know there is no
chance of stopping you, they are going to hide what they do not what you to
see and have 6 months to do it.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
A "primary source?" A general who alleges he was told by two pilots who
he refuses to name. And what did they allegedly tell him?
"The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted
to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special
Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said,
including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."
The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks."
That's all. No claim about what was in the barrels.
Sorry, I need something a bit more specific.
Remember Viet Nam and Nixon's "peace with honor"? After Nixon almost
used up our Nato stockpiles, he declared agreement with the north and
victory. And split. Vietnamization.
NVA took a couple weeks to sweep the place.
Your comment about Muslim sects reminds me about some common wisdom
about the Gulf area some years back- Arabs might fight each other like
dogs, but will attack in unison any foreign intruder. For Dubs to think
we'd be welcomed with flowers is way beyond naive. Plain stupid.
For many years to come, the highest price we will pay for our
involvement in Iraq is the reelection of Dubs/Cheney/Rummy and
implementation of his short-sighted policies. (Meaning, once we were
in, many were reluctant to "change horses" for somebody with exercised
brains.)
J
Charles Self wrote:
> The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives
> extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
> caused, that was a win for dark side.
I'm sure they're basking in the glory of victory, reaping the rewards,
splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
But I could be wrong.
JP
[email protected] wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006 17:55:52 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I am 100% agreement with all this. The problem is that it took 60 years
>>to get into this mess and we're going to have to back out incrementally
>>somehow.
>
>
> It's too late. If we had listened to Barry Goldwater in 1964 we had a
> chance to fix this problem.
> He suggested that people should have private saving accounts tax free
> (like 401k and IRA that came 25 years later) and start phasing out SS
> then.
> LBJ just made it worse when he put the SS surplus "on budget" to hide
> the cost of the war. Nixon used this dodge to balance the budget in
> 69. Clinton did it again in 98. It was basically borrowing money on
> your Visa card to balance your checkbook.
> Now it is really too late. Not only is the deficit going to spike when
> SS goes upside down in 8 or 9 yerars, it is going to start taking a
> hit next year or the year after when the surplus starts decreasing.
> The boomers haven't even started drawing yet. I really think it is
> worse than they admit because a lot of those boomers they expected to
> work to 66.5 are already downsized/retired and they will want their
> money at 62. When the boomers start the run on their IRA/401ks I
> expect the stock market will take a hit too.
> The fundamental problem is the number of retired vs the number of
> workers.
> This whole pension mess may end up driving us into a "depression like"
> situation with no rich government to bail us out.
>
> In the 2020s gold, ammo and MREs may be the preferred currency
I hope you're wrong, but there is a certain logic to it all. That's
why I said (and one of the reason I got a whole thread dedicated to
moi) that the greatest threat to Western civilization is not terror,
it's the profligate spending of it citizens/government to give the
moochers what the want...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 31 Jan 2006 17:55:52 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I am 100% agreement with all this. The problem is that it took 60 years
>to get into this mess and we're going to have to back out incrementally
>somehow.
It's too late. If we had listened to Barry Goldwater in 1964 we had a
chance to fix this problem.
He suggested that people should have private saving accounts tax free
(like 401k and IRA that came 25 years later) and start phasing out SS
then.
LBJ just made it worse when he put the SS surplus "on budget" to hide
the cost of the war. Nixon used this dodge to balance the budget in
69. Clinton did it again in 98. It was basically borrowing money on
your Visa card to balance your checkbook.
Now it is really too late. Not only is the deficit going to spike when
SS goes upside down in 8 or 9 yerars, it is going to start taking a
hit next year or the year after when the surplus starts decreasing.
The boomers haven't even started drawing yet. I really think it is
worse than they admit because a lot of those boomers they expected to
work to 66.5 are already downsized/retired and they will want their
money at 62. When the boomers start the run on their IRA/401ks I
expect the stock market will take a hit too.
The fundamental problem is the number of retired vs the number of
workers.
This whole pension mess may end up driving us into a "depression like"
situation with no rich government to bail us out.
In the 2020s gold, ammo and MREs may be the preferred currency
Swingman wrote:
> "Jay Pique" wrote in message
>
> > splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
> > real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
> >
> > But I could be wrong.
>
> Of the above, there are at least two things you can most definitely rule
> out, and at least one that is verified, by the fact that defeatist's or
> pussies didn't make it through Marine boot camp in the 50's.
I respect that he served.
JP
Charles Self wrote:
> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I respect that he served.
> Sure you do. About as much as I respect you.
Oh please, Charlie, you sound like thin-skinned, usenet newbie. I
disagree with the whiny crap about the terrorists having already won,
the war is totally worthless and the rest of the liberal crap that gets
regurgitated. It'd be nice to think that we can all just get along,
but that ain't reality. You disagree with the war? Fine. But leave
the "we've changed our way of life and the terrorists have won" line of
crap in the bottom of your 50 year old footlocker. This is America.
We have a political system. People that have to make tough decisions
get voted into office. GWB had valid reasons for going to war.
JP
Charles Self wrote:
> Don't let your pique bite your peak, Pique.
> Negative, sure. We're pissing away lives and money at a ferocious rate.
> What's good about that?
"Pissing away".... that's exactly the type of talk that the Democrats
always use. What does it mean? You make it sound like we're just
lining up soldiers to be shot on a whim. We're in A WAR HERE CHARLIE.
So what do you propose? Or do you just feel like sitting back and
talking about how the terrorists have "already won" by "changing our
way of life"? What have we changed?
> Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the
> terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed
> purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close.
"...destroy our way of life." How has it changed *your* life, Charlie?
I work, pay bills, eat, etc... pretty much like I always did. Other
than turning you into a Usenet Crusader with the Let's Bitch About Bush
Party - what's changed in your world? You went to Marine boot camp in
1950, right? Certainly you must have known some people back then that
were killed in WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam, right?
> Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity.
Like who?
> Old? And you won't be one day? Or aren't already?
35. Hope to get old one day. Hope not to be sitting around
complaining about politics, etc... on newsgroup devoted to woodworking.
> Chow, twit.
Yeah. See ya.
JP
*********************************************
He's been here longer. Respect him.
Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
come "almighty
close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a
material
and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..."
To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how
that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that
caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do
so.
H
Charles Self wrote:
> "carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:%[email protected]...
> >> So are we. Stay where you are.
> >>
> >> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
> >> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
> >>
> >> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
> > witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
> > Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
> > Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
> > his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
> > thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
How stupid can some one be to ignore the fact that Iraq's chemical
weapon factories were destroyed in 1991?
> >
> He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
I'm still trying to figure our what country an Araqi General would be
from.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of
where or how the alleged WMD were made.
Also missing is any explanation for why Saddam Hussein
would have sent WMD to Syria on the eve of the US invasion.
What was he saving them for, the next US invasion of Iraq?
Finally, let's not forget that after the Fall of Baghdad the Bush
administration was still assuring us that they KNEW WMD were
cached in the Sunni triangle.
--
FF
Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So much for "there was no reason to invade":
> >
> > http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
> >
> > Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> > gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> > in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> > relevance...
>
> I indicated a couple of years ago that if you warn a terrorist government 6
> months in advance that you are going to invade and they know there is no
> chance of stopping you, they are going to hide what they do not what you to
> see and have 6 months to do it.
David Kay pointed out that while WMD might be hidden it is not
possible to hide the factories. As he noted, no factories, no weapons.
Let's not forget that the Bush administration claimed certain
facilites to have been rebuilt, yet when those facilities were
re-inspected in 2002-2003 they were still the same bombed-out
ruins that they were in 1998.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> FDR: There are Commies in my administration but they're
> harmless.
>
> ... 50 years of misery and oppression go by...
In the US? Because if not, then one supposes FDR was right about
his 'commies' being harmless.
>
>
> GWB/Rummy/Cheney: There is some evidence that the WMDs
> were moved into Syria before the war.
Wrong.
According to GWB/Rummy/Cheney the WMD were moved to forward
positions and the field commaders authorized to use them at their
own discretion. Yet after those hastily abandoned forward positions
were oiverrun by US/UK forces, no WMD were found.
Then, after the fall of Baghdad, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney
the WMD were hidden in the Sunni triangle.
Now, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney they were mistaken about
Iraq's WMD.
I have never seen anything from GWB/Rummy/Cheney claiming
that WMD were shipped from Iraq to Syria.
> ... A former General in the Iraq Air Force - a primary
> source of information - publishes a book describing
> how WMDs were moved into Syria before the war ...
That former General says he got his information second hand.
Applying a similar standard implies that Baghdad Bob was a
primary source.
--
FF
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So much for "there was no reason to invade":
> >
> > http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
> >
> > Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> > gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> > in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> > relevance...
>
> Sounds to me like a run-up/reason to go beat up on Syria. Another pawn in the
> game of Middle East chess designed to bring about The Greater Israel.
Sure but on the part of whom, exactly? AFAIK no one high in the Bush
administration has accused Syria of receiving and hiding Iraqi WMD.
>
> You know what happens when somebody is trying to sell a book?
> Stories.... yup.. stories.
>
Uh hih.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Renata wrote:
>
> > After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
> > act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
> >
> > Renata
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > -snip-
> >
> >> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
> >>
> >> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
> >> or supports terror.
> >>
> >
> > -snip-
>
> Why are you so absorbed by Osama?
He murdered three thousand people on American soil. Letting him
get away with it invites further attacks.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Remember Viet Nam and Nixon's "peace with honor"? After Nixon almost
> used up our Nato stockpiles, he declared agreement with the north and
> victory. And split. Vietnamization.
>
> NVA took a couple weeks to sweep the place.
It took them two years, not a couple of weeks.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> ...
> The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is the same people who
> think our government could cover up 2 rigged elections, countless
> murders and the "bombing" of the World Trade Towers think it is
> impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of WMD.
> We know he had them,
Just what, exactly, do 'we' know he had?
When, exactly, did he have them?
> We know we can't find them, the only question is
> did he destroy them all or did he hide some?
False. See the questions above.
Until you at least try to answer the two questions above, you
cannot even begin to understand the issues.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Charles Self wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the
> > terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed
> > purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close.
>
> Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty
> close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material
> and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11 except that the inept
> airport security is now inept AND slow. Hardly the end of civilization
> as we know it.
The Washington DC ADIZ has all but destroyed General Aviation in
the National Capital Area.
Mail sent to our Congressmen and Senators is no longer opened and
read by their staff. Think about that for a bit.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Charles Self wrote:
>
>
> .
> >
> > The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives
> > extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
> > caused, that was a win for dark side.
> >
> >
>
> OK, just for fun, let's pretend this bit of rhetoric is correct (it
> isn't, at least not to the degree you intimate and not by our own
> doing largely). Just *what* would you prefer that the West should
> have done in the face of violent terrorist attack and the promise
> of more on the way?
Dunno about him but *I* think the world should have put pressure
on Pakistan to allow multi-national forces to pursue and wipe our
Al Quaida.
Then we could have turned our sights on Hezbolla, or Hamas and
those nations, Iran and Syria, that support them.
> More meetings at the UN? More cultural
> exchanges with the Islamic world? An apology from Bush for all
> those WTC victims bleeding messily on the sidewalks of NYC?
>
> See Charlie, *we* didn't change our lives - the little rectal
> parasites working as terrorists did. So what do you propose
> we *should* have done. I constantly hear *opposition* to what
> was done, how Bush acted, and all the rest of the blather. I never
> hear a thoughtful and viable alternative.
NOT invading Iraq was a thoughtful and viable alternative to
invading Iraq. Iraq provided no support for Al Queda and mininal
support for other paramilitary groups.
Starting a second war with Iraq, before finishing the one we were
already in, was not tactically or strategically advisable. Now Al
Queda can and does operate in Iraq, where previously it could not.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs
> >>of one kind or another
> >
> >
> > Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension programs.
> > Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers wallow up to
> > the trough..
>
> Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
> indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
> benefit."
>
aka, being a liar is OK as long as my name is Tim Daneliuk.
My SSA is funded by money withdrawn from my paycheck and a
matching contriburton made by my employer as a benefit. I am
not stealing anything, I am not a thief. It may be the case that I
will wind up receiving more in benefits than I have payed in, then
again maybe not. That's the way pension plans and their ilk work.
Of course if my SSA monies had been invested, instead of spent,
then there is no question that my SS benefits would be fuly funded
from my own deposits.
--
FF
Timmy D. responded to my comment about gas (petrol, that is), then
laminated a springboard (NB: WW related):
<snip>
> All this fulmination about how we've lost all our civil liberties and
> that democracy is on the wane in the West is just partisan gas-passing
> by the popular political Left.
That has to be the smelliest transition I've ever critiqued.
H.
...who retracts his earlier comment. I'm no economist, and the ones I
listen to begin to sound like warlocks or magicians or TV evangelists.
It's a complex and large enough discipline that most any cause-effect
phenomenon can be disputed.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>So much for "there was no reason to invade":
> >>
> >> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
> >>
> >>Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> >>gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> >>in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> >>relevance...
> >
> >
> > Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of
> > where or how the alleged WMD were made.
>
> Also conspicuously absent from the article was the waist size
> of the General in question, his sexual preferences, and his
> diet plan.
None of which are relevent to the issues under discussion. The
manufacture of WMD, however, is relevent. "No factories, no
weapons." -- David Kay.
> Clearly, the article is false on its face.
Agreed.
>
> >
> > Also missing is any explanation for why Saddam Hussein
> > would have sent WMD to Syria on the eve of the US invasion.
> > What was he saving them for, the next US invasion of Iraq?
>
> Also missing is any explanation as to the choice of cover art
> and color of the book binding.
Again not relevent to the issues at hand.
> Absent a complete explanation for
> every single question I may ever have, this author is certainly
> not credible.
I disagree.
>
> >
> > Finally, let's not forget that after the Fall of Baghdad the Bush
> > administration was still assuring us that they KNEW WMD were
> > cached in the Sunni triangle.
>
> Yes, they made an mistake ... no, wait! They are lying liars that
> lie, lie, lie. They purposely invaded an "innocent" country because
> they were bored and had nothing better to do. Then they lied about
> everything that happened, hired Halliburton so Cheney could get richer,
> and they did all this so we'd have really cheap oil. Am I getting
> your Tinfoil Hat consipiracy theory on this about right?
You are illustrating the particular falacy formally referred to as
the false dichotomy.
> >
>
> P.S. I have no idea whether this General is telling the truth. But
> the "You're a liar, neener, neener" argument is not sufficient
> to discredit him or his story in my judgement.
This I believe is a combination of the straw man and ad hominem
falacies.
--
FF
Dale Scroggins wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > So much for "there was no reason to invade":
> >
> > http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
> >
> > Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> > gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> > in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> > relevance...
> >
> >
> I notice that similar posts have appeared in other usenet groups (OT, of
> course). Different authors. Nothing official, or in the popular press.
> Can't even find a mention on Drudge.
Indeed, it would seem that Mr Daneliuk is on a mailing list of some
sort.
(Perhaps the Pat Robertson's talking point of the week club.) Maybe
Mark or Jaunita or Fletis could confirm that for us?
>
> If this were indeed a "primary source" (as I read it, the General only
> claims second-hand knowledge) and our threat of attack resulted in the
> scattering of chemical and biological weapons throughout the Mideast, I
> can't imagine how this can help the administration. Or reduce the peril
> of such weapons falling into terrorists' hands. If Mr. Daneliuk's claim
> is true, then it deals a disastrous blow to the claim that the
> administration is competent to protect us from chemical or biological
> attack.
Indeed, this was one of the more obvious predicted consequences
of an invasion _if_ Iraq had WMD. If we suppose the Bush
administration
realized this (and contrary to the naysayers, the Bush administration
is anything but incompetent) then one supposes that the nonexistance
of Iraqi WMD was one factor that made the risks associated with
the invasion acceptible to the administration.
E.g. the Bush administration will not take military action against
North Korea because they really do have nuclear weapons.
> Why were we unable to contain and destroy those weapons, Mr.
> Daneliuk? Poor intelligence, poor planning, lack of resources? Or was
> it Clinton's fault?
>
When the next president finally does pull US forces out of Iraq and
the country collapses into Civil War who do you think Mr Daneliuk
and his ilk will blame, Bush or the successor who gets stuck with
the mess Bush left him?
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
Several private airports and the associated businesses are suffering
or have gone under as well. Note, the airports maintained at tax-
payer expense have been continued.
That is just one quick example. Since you were unaware of it,
maybe you should pause to reflect on the possibility that there
may be more you are equally unaware of.
> >
> > Mail sent to our Congressmen and Senators is no longer opened and
> > read by their staff. Think about that for a bit.
>
> Why don't you think on it for a while. Specifically, whether they
> ever paid all that much attention in the first place AND we have these
> newfangled gadgets and tools called FAX, email, and telephone. What
> a ridiculous example ...
>
Think about it a bit more...
Here, I'll do it for you:
It is trivial for a small number of technologically competent people to
flood a Cogressman or Senator with correspondence that appears
to be comming from many of his/her constituents when the media
of communication being employed is FAX, or email. Ordinary voice
communicatinos over the telephone has too little capacity. Letters
are much harder and more expensive to fake en masse.
It used to be that a handwritten (not typed) letter from a consituent
carried more weight than any other form of communication that came
without campaign contributions attached.
One clear effect of the anthrax attacks is to put greater distance
between politiicans and their constituents. Whether or not that
was a motive is another matter.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of WMD.
> >
> >> We know he had them,
> >
> >Just what, exactly, do 'we' know he had?
> >
> >When, exactly, did he have them?
>
> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
When, exactly, did he use them?
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006 13:01:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >None of which are relevent to the issues under discussion. The
> >manufacture of WMD, however, is relevent. "No factories, no
> >weapons." -- David Kay.
>
> I guess it all comes down to what is the shelf life of mustard gas, VX
> and sarin.
High purity sarin has a shelf life of at most a few years. Iraqi sarin
was of low purity as was their VX--shelf lives for each were on the
order
of months.
Mustard does have a long shelf life, even that made by Iraq. But the
Iraqi mustard gas was well-accounted for.
--
FF
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> >When, exactly, did he have them?
> >>
> >> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
> >
> > Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
> >
> > When, exactly, did he use them?
> >
>
> You're losing credibility rapidly if you don't know of his use of mustard or
> refuse to look it up. These are well known and documented in some very
> disturbing pictures.
I know the answers, but at first it was not clear if your reticence,
or Carl's was due to ignorance or malice.
Now that you both have had a chance to answer the questions and
both have refused one may now reasonably conclude that you
both refuse to answer because you know the anwers show that
you have been deliberately advancing a false argument.
As you both know, Saddam Hussein last used WMD in 1989. With
the exception of mustard, those weapons had a shelf life measured
in months. His factories were destroyed in 1991 so you know that
any WMD other than mustard in his posession deteriorated to useless-
ness long ago.
If you have followed the reports from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC you
know that the 'discrepency' of mustard is small compared to how
much is used in a typical engagement. It is not possible that
enough is still around to be tactically effective.
Now when Carl wrote in:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/7431146fe720575d?dmode=source&hl=en
Any one who doubts that
Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
his enenies has his head screwed on crooked.
He may have been writing out of ignorance, but it is clear that you
interjected your remarks in an effort to hide the truth leaving us
with no doubts as to your dishonesty.
--
FF
George wrote:
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "George" <George@least> writes:
> >>
> >><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> >When, exactly, did he have them?
> >>>>
> >>>> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
> >>>
> >>> Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
> >>>
> >>> When, exactly, did he use them?
> >>>
> >>
> >>You're losing credibility rapidly if you don't know of his use of mustard
> >>or
> >>refuse to look it up. These are well known and documented in some very
> >>disturbing pictures.
> >>
> >
> > Fred's point, for those too dense to realize it, is that both
> > the Kurd and Iranian usages happened close to 20 year before
> > Bush Jr. invaded, and 10 years before desert storm.
> >
>
> Then he should have said that. Which he didn't. " Just what did he use?"
> Seems unambiguously a challenge to any usage at all.
Wrong.
I was challenging Carl to state fact sufficient to understanding the
truth. We note that neither he nor yourself accepted that challenge.
We presume that is because you know the facts do not favor your
argument.
> I can see you're
> prepared, as you accuse others to make up your own set of "facts" and
> suppositions. Sort of common, this business of accusing your opposition of
> your own weaknesses or predilections. Ignorance is on your side.
Google my UseNet articles.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension
> >>>programs. Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers
> >>>wallow up to the trough..
> >>
> >>Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
> >>indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
> >>benefit."
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
> > into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
> > calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
>
> So all the analysis that shows that most people will take out more
> than they ever put in is incorrect?
I think if you check the arithmetic you will find that they do not
figure
in the employer's contribution or even the minimal interest one could
get on a passbook savings account.
--
FF
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:18:40 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
>> going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition
>> and yours would be very different. You're also in full support of the
>> part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
>> be infringed", right? I'll just bet.
>>
>> todd
>>
>You left out some words, something about forming a "well-regulated militia."
>We have one of those. They are hard at work, where the politicians - our
>King George - send them.
>
You appear to have misread the text as well as missed the original
meaning of the words. Nothing in the 2nd amendment about "forming"
anything. The first 10 amendments were adopted as a bill of rights *for
the citizens* of the republic. Why would the 2nd amendment then contain
verbiage granting the republic the right to do something that any country
would be expected to do? The words "the right of the people", not "the
right of the republic" is also a clear indicator that this right was meant
for the citizens. You further neglect the common usage of the phrases in
their historical context. "Well regulated" meant "well practiced, well
drilled". Thus, the idea was that the citizens of the country would be
able to protect themselves and their states by being well practiced with
firearms that they (the people) owned. Writings of the various founders
further emphasize and reinforce those points.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:52:05 -0800, mac davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:38:59 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>dnoyeB wrote:
>>
>>> In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
>>> the ones on top that tend to be lucky.
>>
>>You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
>>industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
>>Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
>>hours.
>>
>>Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
>>over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
>>paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
>>fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
>>been known to spend the night there from time to time.
>>
>>I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
>>build his business and his fortune.
>>
>>Joe Barta
>
>When I hear folks complain about the "rich" not being taxed enough, I think of
>the folks making $20k a year and paying 25% and of Bill Gates..if he only paid
>1%, he's pay more in one year than most folks pay in a lifetime..
>
In actuality, someone with a *taxable income* of $20k will pay on the
order of less than 12%. The person with a taxable income of $20k will
actually be making quite a bit more because the tax quoted is for income
after the standard deduction and before any tax credits are applied.
>bottom line: how many good jobs have you had where the owner was poor?
>
>
>
>mac
>
>Please remove splinters before emailing
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>>Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
> >>>into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
> >>>calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
> >>
> >>So all the analysis that shows that most people will take out more
> >>than they ever put in is incorrect?
> >
> >
> > I think if you check the arithmetic you will find that they do not
> > figure in the employer's contribution
>
> I think this is incorrect - or at least irrelevant - there is *no*
> money. It's been spent on other social do-gooding, servicing the
> resultant debt and so forth.
Argument from irrelevency.
That somebody else took it out before the retiree was
allowed to take it out for himself does not make the statement
in question _incorrect_. In this instance your thinking appears
to gotten off the track of the question at hand.
According to my Uncle the banker, the Federal Government kept
Social Security funding separate from the General Fund, (e.g.
in a 'lockbox') Until the Johnson Administration. It was looted
to offset expenditures for the Vietnam war.
> ..
> or even the minimal interest one could
> > get on a passbook savings account.
> >
>
> I understand this. But the fact is that there *is* no interest because
> the money has never been invested.
Yes, that is the problem indeed. Had the SSAs been
managed properly instead of looted, we'd all be well
positioned for retirement. IF retirees withderaw more
than they put in it is only becuase of that mismanagement.
The retirees are NOT the thieves. They are not demanding
payment beyond what woudl erasonably be expected to be
on account if their acounts had been managed with even
the minimal degree of fiduciary responsibility the pre-
Reagan era government demanded of private pensions.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Yes, that is the problem indeed. Had the SSAs been
> > managed properly instead of looted, we'd all be well
> > positioned for retirement. IF retirees withderaw more
> > than they put in it is only becuase of that mismanagement.
> >
> > The retirees are NOT the thieves. They are not demanding
> > payment beyond what woudl erasonably be expected to be
> > on account if their acounts had been managed with even
> > the minimal degree of fiduciary responsibility the pre-
> > Reagan era government demanded of private pensions.
> >
>
>
> Well hang on a second. It is certainly true that people should have
> the reasonable expectation of get out what they put in and doing
> so is not theft. But virtually every analysis of the situation I've
> read - and I grant they could all be wrong and I'd not know the
> difference - notes that *most* people will live long enough to take
> out more than they put in (without regard to whether the funds are
> actually there or not - this is a technicality at this point having
> to do with how the government funds it).
Again, I think you wil find that every such analysis ignores both
the employer contribution, and reasonable interest rate.
I'm not clear on whether or not the employer contribution alone
would be enough to tip the balance into the black, but the
reason people will take out more than they put in (plus interest
on what they put in) is not becuase retirees are _thieves_. It is
because the SSAs were managed by thieves. Those are the
same thieves who are doing the analyses to which you refer.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:30:26 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> OK more bluntly, the framers never thought the government was
> >> responsible for keeping people from starving.
> >
> >To the contrary I have no doubt that the framers would have though
> >measures needed to prevent famine were within the proper role
> >of government, under the general welfare clause.
>
> We are not talking about "famine" simply people who are broke.
*You* are not talking about famine. *I* was responding to your
remarks about starvation.
> Show me
> evidence of ONE government welfare program before the 20th century in
> the US. There were a number of ex-presidents living in what we would
> call "poverty" now.
Show me evidence of ONE government program regulating boradcast
telecomunicaotns before the 20th Century. Show me ONE government
program funding a manned space progam beofre the 20th Century.
That the government did or did not do something in the past does
not mean that it was or was not constitutional or appropriate to
do it.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:30:26 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> OK more bluntly, the framers never thought the government was
> >> responsible for keeping people from starving.
> >
> >To the contrary I have no doubt that the framers would have though
> >measures needed to prevent famine were within the proper role
> >of government, under the general welfare clause.
>
> We are not talking about "famine" simply people who are broke. Show me
> evidence of ONE government welfare program before the 20th century in
> the US. There were a number of ex-presidents living in what we would
> call "poverty" now.
Here is an example from 1882-4 of an entire community of people
dependent on government rations, one presumes provided by
the Federal Government although the recepients were non-citizens:
http://www.blackfeetnation.com/Home%20Page/timeline.htm
--
FF
On 6 Feb 2006 09:30:26 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> OK more bluntly, the framers never thought the government was
>> responsible for keeping people from starving.
>
>To the contrary I have no doubt that the framers would have though
>measures needed to prevent famine were within the proper role
>of government, under the general welfare clause.
We are not talking about "famine" simply people who are broke. Show me
evidence of ONE government welfare program before the 20th century in
the US. There were a number of ex-presidents living in what we would
call "poverty" now.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
> I think your analysis is well taken and probably essentially correct.
> But it still ignores two important things: a) Medicare/Medicaid (which is
> is in way worse shape than Socialist Security) b) The clamor from the
> retirees for more and more. Entitlements are built on the thieving of
> many people, among them as you point out, the politicos themselves.
> But let's not be too quick to exhonerate the Sheeple. The biggest lobby
> in D.C. is the AARP which is no more- or less than a professional
> mooching society for retirees to get what they have not actually earned.
> This is how we get unafordable drug programs and the like.
Well then maybe you should lobby to have
"and provide for ... the general welfare" removed from the Article I of
the
Constittution.
Or just move to some country which does not.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 15:33:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Here is an example from 1882-4 of an entire community of people
> >dependent on government rations, one presumes provided by
> >the Federal Government although the recepients were non-citizens:
> >
> >http://www.blackfeetnation.com/Home%20Page/timeline.htm
>
> That was a treaty, after we stole their land ... that we reneged on a
> few years later. It wasn't a government welfare program. It was a
> meager bribe to stop a war.
Both.
It is an example of a government-welfare program established
as part of a treaty.
The treaty confined the Blackfeet to a reservation with insufficent
arable land to sustain them.
As I said, the program was for non-citizens.
Digressing a bit, reneging on treaties (in contravention of the
Constitution)
was commonplace during the 19th Century. Should we use that as a
standard for how our government operates in teh 21st Century?
--
FF
On 6 Feb 2006 15:33:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Here is an example from 1882-4 of an entire community of people
>dependent on government rations, one presumes provided by
>the Federal Government although the recepients were non-citizens:
>
>http://www.blackfeetnation.com/Home%20Page/timeline.htm
That was a treaty, after we stole their land ... that we reneged on a
few years later. It wasn't a government welfare program. It was a
meager bribe to stop a war.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> : Al Quaida.
>
> : Then we could have turned our sights on Hezbolla, or Hamas
>
> Hey -- weren't they just democratically elected? And isn't that the
> desired result of the Iraq war (bringing democray the the Midle East)?
>
See? We missed our chance!
> Bush should be really pleased.
>
Therein lies a huge problem. Hamas was elected in Palestine
and in Egypt, the militant Islamacists had a very strong showing
in their recent elections. It would have been even stronger had
Mubarak not used the military to violently suppress the vote.
Mubarak remains our ally and for that he received not a word of
criticism from the White House, for his suppression of Democracy.
The same is true of Musharaf in Pakistan.
It is one thing to make a deal with one dctatorship (Musharaf)
in order to defeat a worse dictatorship (the Taliban). It is quite
another to make those deals and say we're supporting Democracy.
--
FF
Leon wrote:
>> Sorry, I need something a bit more specific.
>
> Like a knock up side the head? Sorry you walked right into that one.
>
Nope, you did Leon. Even your beloved King George has said the
intelligence was wrong, there were no WMD.
Do you think he'd have admitted that if there'd been the slightest
possibility they'd been shipped elsewhere?
Do you really believe that no Iraqi in the whole country would have
blown the whistle to the army units searching for them if they had been
shipped or hidden?
Wishful thinking, Leon - that source is just promoting his book.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
[email protected] wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006 17:22:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >If you have followed the reports from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC you
> >know that the 'discrepency' of mustard is small compared to how
> >much is used in a typical engagement. It is not possible that
> >enough is still around to be tactically effective.
>
> What is "tactically effevctive"?
>
> How much would it take in the subway to gridlock midtown Manhattan?
Putting aside, for the moment, the question of why?
How would Saddam Hussein bomb or shell a subway
in midtown Manhattan?
> ... A beer case size box of 12 oz cans? The subway moving through the
> tunnel would pump it through the system and out to the streets.
Ok, suppose that somehow he managed to get the mustard gas
out of the shells or bombs and then somehow managed to can it
in 12 ounce cans. How would he get it out of the cans, open them
up and pour it out?
How wouidl a subway moving though a tunnel 'pump' the puddle out
into the streets?
> ...
Keep in mind also that there was never any evidence that mustard
gas munitions had survived post-1991. The problem was that it
was difficult to verify how may shells/bombs were destroyed by
coalition bombing, and exaclty how much was used during the
Iran-Iraq war.
--
FF
On 30 Jan 2006 17:22:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>If you have followed the reports from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC you
>know that the 'discrepency' of mustard is small compared to how
>much is used in a typical engagement. It is not possible that
>enough is still around to be tactically effective.
What is "tactically effevctive"?
How much would it take in the subway to gridlock midtown Manhattan?
... A beer case size box of 12 oz cans? The subway moving through the
tunnel would pump it through the system and out to the streets.
You are not disabling soldiers with NBC gear, you are simply panicing
a city.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>>Nope, you did Leon. Even your beloved King George has said the
>>intelligence was wrong, there were no WMD.
>
> Cite, please... I don't remember him saying that there weren't any,
> just that we didn't find any.
>
I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were
the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there
weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't
find a reference to that specific statement.
But Google finds lots of references to the presidential commission that
said the same thing and Bush praised their findings.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Leon wrote:
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were
>> the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there
>> weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I
>> can't find a reference to that specific statement.
>
> Oh, A personal twist on what you saw. Perhaps something not out of
> context and documented.
>
I resent the implication that I'm incapable of hearing what someone
said. And I notice you ignored my second paragraph.
Enough - you're not going to admit Bush can't walk on water :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
[email protected] wrote:
> Starting a second war with Iraq, before finishing the one we were
> already in, was not tactically or strategically advisable. Now Al
> Queda can and does operate in Iraq, where previously it could not.
But it took everybodys mind off of our failure to capture OBL and mullah
Omar :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension
>> programs. Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers
>> wallow up to the trough..
>
> Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
> indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
> benefit."
>
Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
And for a good portion of the time I was self-employed, I was unable to
write off the employers half like companies could.
So when you claim I'm a thief for taking SS benefits, I see red. It's a
good thing you weren't standing next to me when you said it.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:09:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>They found that 727 flying a local route in south america. Scary (no
>>maintenance protocol) but not that sinister.
>
> What was any different about that 727 from any other plan flying local
>routes in South America? :-)
>
That is probably true but the report originally surfaced when it fell
of the FAA's maintenance logs. I think the owner said it was missing
so he wouldn't have to say he sold a bad plane.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:18:09 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
If they catch him they won't get the "trillion" for the next 5 years.
This is the government. They never want to end a program.
It's like the phony drug war.
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence:
> When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to
> alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices
> over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the
> fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it.
>
> By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline
> supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries.
> It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy.
> It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity.
>
> Enough. Rant on.
>
> Steve
The last I checked, there wasn't a whole lot of gasoline wells around where
we just walk up, attach a hose, and start pumping. Crude oil is extracted
and refined (with the input of energy) to produce gasoline.
todd
After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
Renata
On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
-snip-
>
> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
>
> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
> or supports terror.
>
-snip-
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:%[email protected]...
>>>>> So are we. Stay where you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
>>>>> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
>>>> witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
>>>> Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
>>>> Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
>>>> his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
>>>> thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
>>>>
>>> He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
>>
>> Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of
>> "testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported
>> on ABC News.
>>
> Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster
> was
> trying to give. He "stated" on Fox News. Lots of difference. I don't
> generally watch TV news unless it's on local events, but I have tried Fox
> News from time to time. The others are piss poor, and Fox News beats them
> for lousiness hands down.
tes·ti·fy (tst-f)
v. intr.
1.. To make a declaration of truth or fact under oath; submit testimony:
witnesses testifying before a grand jury.
2.. To express or declare a strong belief, especially to make a
declaration of faith.
3.. To make a statement based on personal knowledge in support of an
asserted fact; bear witness: the exhilaration of weightlessness, to which
many astronauts have testified.
4.. To serve as evidence: wreckage that testifies to the ferocity of the
storm.
I wish I had your clairvoyance to know that he was using the first
definition and not the third.
todd
begin 666 ebreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(4A ^!H<P(
0S3LJ24I=BQ7V/T6B2* `.P``
`
end
begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$<;>
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end
begin 666 schwa.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I>^$6
,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[
`
end
begin 666 imacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(\6RXGQ
,X$OR5$7C=1P0% `[
`
end
begin 666 lprime.gif
M1TE&.#EA`P`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````#`!8```(+A(\)8;P-
'E9PT$10`.P``
`
end
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JvnDf.311330> Testify in court, under oath was something of the
impression the poster was
> trying to give.
Y'know, there are some folks who'll even lie then....
"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over
> $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the
> fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it.
>
They don't have the same driving habits, or distance to commute or
interstates and freeways for vacationing that we have. Misleading or nearly
worthless comparison, as US drivers more often than not _must_ drive
because of where they live and work.
I think it's easier to control reactors and their by-products than carbon
load, but I'm in the minority.
> By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline
> supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries.
> It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy.
> It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity.
>
> Enough. Rant on.
>
We're going to "mine" the methyl hydrate on the bottom of the ocean, haven't
you heard?
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> The Washington DC ADIZ has all but destroyed General Aviation in
>> the National Capital Area.
>
> While that's bad news for you Cessna owners its is arguable a
> trivial impact on the nation at large ... but I'll give you
> that one, at least for now.
>
Did the expand the prohibited area as well?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> >When, exactly, did he have them?
>>
>> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
>
> Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
>
> When, exactly, did he use them?
>
You're losing credibility rapidly if you don't know of his use of mustard or
refuse to look it up. These are well known and documented in some very
disturbing pictures.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 30 Jan 2006 13:01:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>None of which are relevent to the issues under discussion. The
>>manufacture of WMD, however, is relevent. "No factories, no
>>weapons." -- David Kay.
>
> I guess it all comes down to what is the shelf life of mustard gas, VX
> and sarin.
> They haven't made chloradane for 3 decades but there are still guys
> with a jug in the shed
Guy half mile away had a _lot_ of chlordane he bought before the ban. I was
visiting him one day while he was spreading something on his potatoes.
Chlordane. Damn near messed myself in indignation. Fortunately, I'm
upstream of his fields, and I wouldn't buy a bag of his produce on a bet.
Organophosphates like Sevin are fun. You can watch the little potato-eating
buggers twitch and fall. Of course you have to hit them with it directly,
and it's not persistent. Used to use it on my garden potatoes after the
kids grew up. While they were young, they loved squishing the larvae
between their thumb and fingers. Got so they could control the direction
and distance on the guts to spatter each other....
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <George@least> writes:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> >When, exactly, did he have them?
>>>>
>>>> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
>>>
>>> Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
>>>
>>> When, exactly, did he use them?
>>>
>>
>>You're losing credibility rapidly if you don't know of his use of mustard
>>or
>>refuse to look it up. These are well known and documented in some very
>>disturbing pictures.
>>
>
> Fred's point, for those too dense to realize it, is that both
> the Kurd and Iranian usages happened close to 20 year before
> Bush Jr. invaded, and 10 years before desert storm.
>
Then he should have said that. Which he didn't. " Just what did he use?"
Seems unambiguously a challenge to any usage at all. I can see you're
prepared, as you accuse others to make up your own set of "facts" and
suppositions. Sort of common, this business of accusing your opposition of
your own weaknesses or predilections. Ignorance is on your side.
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
>>>>>into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
>>>>>calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
>>>>
>>>>So all the analysis that shows that most people will take out more
>>>>than they ever put in is incorrect?
>>>
>>>
>>>I think if you check the arithmetic you will find that they do not
>>>figure in the employer's contribution
>>
>>I think this is incorrect - or at least irrelevant - there is *no*
>>money. It's been spent on other social do-gooding, servicing the
>>resultant debt and so forth.
>
>
> Argument from irrelevency.
>
> That somebody else took it out before the retiree was
> allowed to take it out for himself does not make the statement
> in question _incorrect_. In this instance your thinking appears
> to gotten off the track of the question at hand.
>
> According to my Uncle the banker, the Federal Government kept
> Social Security funding separate from the General Fund, (e.g.
> in a 'lockbox') Until the Johnson Administration. It was looted
> to offset expenditures for the Vietnam war.
>
>
>>..
>> or even the minimal interest one could
>>
>>>get on a passbook savings account.
>>>
>>
>>I understand this. But the fact is that there *is* no interest because
>>the money has never been invested.
>
>
> Yes, that is the problem indeed. Had the SSAs been
> managed properly instead of looted, we'd all be well
> positioned for retirement. IF retirees withderaw more
> than they put in it is only becuase of that mismanagement.
>
> The retirees are NOT the thieves. They are not demanding
> payment beyond what woudl erasonably be expected to be
> on account if their acounts had been managed with even
> the minimal degree of fiduciary responsibility the pre-
> Reagan era government demanded of private pensions.
>
Well hang on a second. It is certainly true that people should have
the reasonable expectation of get out what they put in and doing
so is not theft. But virtually every analysis of the situation I've
read - and I grant they could all be wrong and I'd not know the
difference - notes that *most* people will live long enough to take
out more than they put in (without regard to whether the funds are
actually there or not - this is a technicality at this point having
to do with how the government funds it).
Moreover, the only funds in question are not just Socialist
Security. But the far larger problem is Medicare/Medicaid, the new Drug
Benefit, et al wherein there is pretty much no question that everyone
who consumes these services is drawing out far more than they ever put
in. Entitlements broadly are mooching programs. They steal from one
group of citizens to give to another. It ironic that the same people who
(rightfully) howl about accounting mischief like the cases at Adelphia
and Tyco have no moral problem with half the Federal budget being built
on a not-dissimillar scam.
We have some hope of getting out of the Socialist Security mess by means
of a gradual migration to private retirement funds, but there is no way
to fix the excesses of the rest of the Entitlements other than my simply
declaring an end date. The rate of growth for demand of these
Entitlements exceeds the rate at which we can reasonably expect to pay
for them. At current pace, the only other option is for our children and
grandchildren to morgage this nation at a level that makes today's debt
look like pocket change. Europe is in even worse shape in this regard.
As I said, the only thing the Islamic whackjobs really have to do is sit
back and watch the West spend itself into oblivion with nice little
do-gooder programs...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Michael wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> I'm all for you getting out what you put in - but no more..
>
>
>
>
> Ahhh, but that was made impossible the first time some congress critter
> decided to use "surplus" SS monies to pay for his pet project.
> How can you have "surplus" if what someone puts in was for themselves
> when they retire?
>
> I don't care if it was a Dem or a Rep. The moment they decided that MY
> $$s were paying for someone else now, and I would be "reimbursed" by
> future generations, just so they could raid the till, that became fraud.
>
> Now, they talk of limiting benefits, raising the elegible age, etc. I
> didn't know too many "contracts" that could be so easily changed by one
> side, without the other's agreement.
>
> I'm all for "getting what you put into it". so...I've been paying SS
> since my first job at 16 years old. Just how much do I have in there?
> Can they/WILL they tell me?
> No.
> Because they want to pocket more than half of what I've paid into it.
>
> If they TRULY want to privatize SS, then it will no longer be removed
> from my paycheck by the governement, and they will PAY BACK EVERY PENNY
> THEY TOOK FROM ME!!!
>
> otherwise, it is yet ANOTHER attempt to steal my hard-earned money.
>
> No more BS, no more "creative accounting". It's high time the
> government was held accountable in it's financial dealings.
> They don't want the "common man" able to overdraw their finances? They
> should set the first example.
>
> And people should be able to pay for what they want.
> You don't want to pay for Medicare/SS/Unemployment/etc., then you simply
> will not be allowed to make use of those resources. Ever.
> don't want to pay to protect a little bit of the wilderness? then,
> that's fine. Just don't ever expect to be allowed into a state/fed park.
> don't wnat to pay taxes? ok.
> Then you can't use roads, or any other goverment-controlled resource.
>
> It really would be that simple. You'll get to use what you pay for.
I am 100% agreement with all this. The problem is that it took 60 years
to get into this mess and we're going to have to back out incrementally
somehow. I'd favor a system that backed the Socialist Security program
out 2% a year for 50 years. You retire this year, you get 100% of the
benefit. Next year, 98% benefit, and so forth. SS taxation would only
exist to fund the declining balance of what is due on that basis. Take
the lids off Roth IRAs and let everyone put as much into them as they
can afford.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension
>>>programs. Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers
>>>wallow up to the trough..
>>
>>Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
>>indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
>>benefit."
>>
>
>
> Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
> into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
> calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
So all the analysis that shows that most people will take out more
than they ever put in is incorrect? And will you only take out the
amount of Medicare/Medicate/Drug benefit that you paid for too?
Get real. If people live as they are projected to, most people will
take way more out than they every put in, even considering compounding.
This is exacerbated by two things: 1) People want to retire with better
and more benefits and 2) Left Politik that wants to *increase* social
spending in the face of the evidence that it is a financial trainwreck.
> And for a good portion of the time I was self-employed, I was unable to
> write off the employers half like companies could.
Then you need a better lawyer/accountant. It takes about $500 to
incorporate a Sub-S corporation and make yourself a legitimate
employee thereof. Your lack of due diligence in designing your
own business structure does not justify your wailing about not
getting the writeoffs you want. IOW, it's your own fault.
>
> So when you claim I'm a thief for taking SS benefits, I see red. It's a
> good thing you weren't standing next to me when you said it.
What a shock, bad ideas lead to intimations of violence. How special.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least> wrote:
>
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> .
>>>
>>> P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?
>>>
>>
>> Dan-eh-luck
>
>Denying your Ukrainian heritage? Should be lyuk.
Unless your ancestors came from England (and maybe even if they did), I'll bet
you don't pronounce your own last name the same way they did a few generations
back, either.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006 13:11:12 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
> >> government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
> >> now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
> >> established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
> >> large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
> >> statistics cited by M&J as being false.
> >
> >Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
> >the government than they return in taxes.
> >
> >Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
> >wealthy
> >themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
> > benefit.
> >
> >Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Modell.
> >(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
> >Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
> >in taxes only mitigates it a little.
>
> And of course Art Model is the sole and only beneficiary of that
> government (what did you call it) "welfare".
Well, some hot dog vendors got jobs, but then again the hot dog
vendors over at Memorial lost their jobs.
> Bet he gets awfully lonely,
> just puttering around all by himself, meandering about that big stadium
> the government gave him.
No, he rented it out, and also received all the profits from
consessions
as part of his deal. Despite all that, the Ravens went bankrupt and
the NFL eventually made him sell the team.
> ... and that was federal tax dollars given to
> Model? or are we trying to mix federal and local issues here?
Oh yes, I'm mixing state and local issues in as well. I believe
the comments were directed at 'the government' in general, not
just the Feds.
>
> How much of the $2M went directly to him vs. to the moving expenses for
> the team?
>
All of it.
> ... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
> stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
> government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
> might be an argument to be made.
There might be, but AFAIK, no such project has been shown to
have a net economic benefit for the community for several decades.
> Your point however, that somehow those
> programs benefit solely the person involved is more than a bit absurd.
No, you are the one who wrote that Art Modell was the
sole beniciiciary. To attribute your comments to me
is inaccurate.
>
> [Why am I responding to this?]
>
Because you don't know anything about Art Modell.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2006 12:45:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
> >> going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition and
> >> yours would be very different.
> >
> >Well 'general' is a pretty broad term.
>
> Since there was no pension for federal workers until the 30s and the
> president didn't get a pension until 1958 I doubt the "framers" had
> any concept of pensions.
Nor did they have any concept of telecomunications yet what they had
to say about free speech is readily applied to new media.
GIven that the state of the art of aviation was ballooning, they had no
concpet of an Air Force yet the Congress is allowed to fund one
independently
of the Army and the Navy.
OTOH, governments have protected public health for as long as
there have been governments. Back as far as civilization can
be traced in all parts of the world there have been public projects to
provide safe drinking water, and sewers. Consider also government
enforced quarantines to prevent the spread of disease, the laws of
kosher (originally, one supposes to protect public health) vaccinations
and so on.
--
FF
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:38:59 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>dnoyeB wrote:
>
>> In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
>> the ones on top that tend to be lucky.
>
>You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
>industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
>Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
>hours.
>
>Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
>over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
>paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
>fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
>been known to spend the night there from time to time.
>
>I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
>build his business and his fortune.
>
>Joe Barta
When I hear folks complain about the "rich" not being taxed enough, I think of
the folks making $20k a year and paying 25% and of Bill Gates..if he only paid
1%, he's pay more in one year than most folks pay in a lifetime..
bottom line: how many good jobs have you had where the owner was poor?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
> <SNIP>
> .
>>
>> P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?
>>
>
> Dan-eh-luck
Denying your Ukrainian heritage? Should be lyuk.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>
>> ... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
>> stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
>> government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
>
>They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
>to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
>government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
>actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
>queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
>status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
>revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
>sort is a scam, period.
The worst part of the scam is that the public often doesn't even get a say in
making the decision. That just happened here in Indianapolis -- the city is
spending half a BILLION dollars to build a new stadium/convention center
complex. At the same time, the mayor is planning to lay off cops and
firefighters because there's not enough money to pay them. No referendum. We
the voters basically have no recourse. All we can do is vote the clown out of
office -- in two years -- and we'll still be stuck with paying for the stadium
anyway.
See my sig...
P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On 4 Feb 2006 12:45:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
>> going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition and
>> yours would be very different.
>
>Well 'general' is a pretty broad term.
Since there was no pension for federal workers until the 30s and the
president didn't get a pension until 1958 I doubt the "framers" had
any concept of pensions.
George wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>.
>>
>>>P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?
>>>
>>
>>Dan-eh-luck
>
>
> Denying your Ukrainian heritage? Should be lyuk.
>
>
No - trying to make it palatable to English speakers (and you're right,
of course ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Doug Miller wrote:
<SNIP>
.
>
> P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?
>
Dan-eh-luck
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mark & Juanita wrote:
<SNIP>
> ... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
> stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
> government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
sort is a scam, period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 3 Feb 2006 13:11:12 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
>> government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
>> now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
>> established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
>> large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
>> statistics cited by M&J as being false.
>
>Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
>the government than they return in taxes.
>
>Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
>wealthy
>themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
> benefit.
>
>Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
>(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
>Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
>in taxes only mitigates it a little.
And of course Art Model is the sole and only beneficiary of that
government (what did you call it) "welfare". Bet he gets awfully lonely,
just puttering around all by himself, meandering about that big stadium
the government gave him. ... and that was federal tax dollars given to
Model? or are we trying to mix federal and local issues here?
How much of the $2M went directly to him vs. to the moving expenses for
the team?
... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
might be an argument to be made. Your point however, that somehow those
programs benefit solely the person involved is more than a bit absurd.
[Why am I responding to this?]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
I constantly hear *opposition* to what
> was done, how Bush acted, and all the rest of the blather. I never
> hear a thoughtful and viable alternative.
You know the old saying, United we stand, Divided we fall. I think the
terrorists best allies are those opposed to the current administration.
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs
>>>>of one kind or another
>>>
>>>
>>>Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension programs.
>>>Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers wallow up to
>>>the trough..
>>
>>Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
>>indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
>>benefit."
>>
>
>
> aka, being a liar is OK as long as my name is Tim Daneliuk.
Game, set, match. Attack the speaker not the idea, eh?
I have in so sense of the work lied at any point in any thread.
>
> My SSA is funded by money withdrawn from my paycheck and a
> matching contriburton made by my employer as a benefit. I am
> not stealing anything, I am not a thief. It may be the case that I
> will wind up receiving more in benefits than I have payed in, then
> again maybe not. That's the way pension plans and their ilk work.
Socialist Security is only one dimension of the problem, and yes,
many/most people will take far more out than they ever put in
because the average lifespan is increasing but the Sheeple and
Congress Critters refuse to raise the benefits age or otherwise
bound the benefits. The far worse sin is Medicare/Medicaid wherein
people will take *far* more out of the system than they every put in.
I'm all for you getting out what you put in - but no more..
>
> Of course if my SSA monies had been invested, instead of spent,
> then there is no question that my SS benefits would be fuly funded
> from my own deposits.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
if only GHB had had the balls to finish it off .......................
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:29:16 -0500, "mike hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Mike Berger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Yeah, but we brought democracy to the middle east. You hate
>>> freedom, don't you?
>>>
>>> Renata wrote:
>>>> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>>>> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>>>>
>>
>> How long do you think freedom and democracy, such as they are, in Iraq
>> will last once the U.S. pulls out? Six weeks or six months? Somewhere
>> between the two is my estimate, and that might well be generous. With the
>> various Muslim sects locked on each other's throats, the winner will be
>> for fate to determine and unless Bush unlocks his brain, the overall
>> winner is bound to be OBL.
>>
>> The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our
>> lives extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of
>> security caused, that was a win for dark side.
>Yea Charlie why not bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not
>happening, anyway I guess you can always let your kids try and solve the
>problem . If only the previous white house occupant had taken action while
>he had numerous chances none of this would have happened....
>
"John Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> if only GHB had had the balls to finish it off .......................
.. or Truman to let McArthur kick the Koreans into China by putting a stop
to the Chinese "volunteers". I don't know if either was strictly a question
of balls or not, but damn, you can't help but wonder.
Goes back to my philosophy as a kid, when I realized that I wasn't ever
going to be silver tongued devil enough to talk my way out of situations, if
you're forced to take a swing, made damn sure you put everything you have
behind the punch, and don't miss.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
"hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Swingman, yeah that's right, SWINGman threw a jab then rounded with:
> <snip>
>> if
>> you're forced to take a swing, made damn sure you put everything you have
>> behind the punch, and don't miss.
>
> AAhhh. Now I get the moniker.
>
I think the moniker (or as someone recently wrote, monica) relates more to a
band than to a fist. But I've been wrong before. At least once.
"Mike Berger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, but we brought democracy to the middle east. You hate
> freedom, don't you?
>
> Renata wrote:
>> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>>
How long do you think freedom and democracy, such as they are, in Iraq will
last once the U.S. pulls out? Six weeks or six months? Somewhere between the
two is my estimate, and that might well be generous. With the various Muslim
sects locked on each other's throats, the winner will be for fate to
determine and unless Bush unlocks his brain, the overall winner is bound to
be OBL.
The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives
extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
caused, that was a win for dark side.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Dale Scroggins wrote:
>
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>>>
>>> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>>>
>>> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>>> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>>> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>>> relevance...
>>>
>>>
>> I notice that similar posts have appeared in other usenet groups (OT,
>> of course). Different authors. Nothing official, or in the popular
>> press. Can't even find a mention on Drudge.
>>
>> If this were indeed a "primary source" (as I read it, the General only
>> claims second-hand knowledge) and our threat of attack resulted in the
>> scattering of chemical and biological weapons throughout the Mideast,
>> I can't imagine how this can help the administration. Or reduce the
>> peril of such weapons falling into terrorists' hands. If Mr.
>> Daneliuk's claim is true, then it deals a disastrous blow to the claim
>> that the
>
>
> It is not *my* claim - it is the recording of a story told in a new
> book.
>
>> administration is competent to protect us from chemical or biological
>> attack. Why were we unable to contain and destroy those weapons, Mr.
>> Daneliuk? Poor intelligence, poor planning, lack of resources? Or
>> was it Clinton's fault?
>
>
> Yes, yes, I know, Bush must meet a far higher standard than any other
> president. He must execute the war on terror (which he inherited from
> generations of presidents who did nothing or not enough) *perfectly* or
> its all his fault. Bush is a flawed president - deeply so in some
> respects -
> but listening to his opponents squeal make him look like a genius.
>
I don't think you are likely to be hired by the Bush administration as a
political strategist. Or anyone else, for that matter. Your original
post has done more harm than good to your cause. That's why this
General's account will receive no mention from the administration or its
more experienced supporters. You need to figure out some way of calling
this former Iraqi general a lying sycophant without appearing too obvious.
Dale Scroggins.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least> wrote:
>
>"Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
> Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over
>> $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the
>> fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it.
>>
>
>They don't have the same driving habits, or distance to commute or
>interstates and freeways for vacationing that we have. Misleading or nearly
>worthless comparison, as US drivers more often than not _must_ drive
>because of where they live and work.
You have cause and effect reversed. It is the modest price of gasoline that
enables many in the US to _choose_ to live at some considerable distance from
their work (or, conversely, to choose to work at some considerable distance
from home).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charles Self wrote:
>> The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our
>> lives
>> extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
>> caused, that was a win for dark side.
>
> I'm sure they're basking in the glory of victory, reaping the rewards,
> splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
> real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
>
> But I could be wrong.
>
Don't let your pique bite your peak, Pique.
Negative, sure. We're pissing away lives and money at a ferocious rate.
What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the
terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed
purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close.
Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity.
Old? And you won't be one day? Or aren't already?
Chow, twit.
Not quoting anyone for my convenience.
I remember the communists spreading their message with propoganda,
somewhat like our own media machine and political advertising. Why
can't we sponsor advertising in these countries and get the people we
want elected, just like people in other countries do here? I'd be
willing to see some of our tax dollars go just to see if we can pick
people who would be just as much to our advantage as Clinton and the
Bushes were to China, Japan, Mexico and Korea. Not to mention what
Reagan did for Iran and Iraq. If we are dropping bombs on these people,
why are we selling them weapons? China, Iran and Korea are loose
cannons with nukes now and we have taken Iraq.? If Iraq had WMD, then
why didn't Clinton and his administration get to the bottom of it? 8
years, what all COULD happen in 8 years? Even a country like Iraq could
have had the labs turning out nuclear (nukialar, for Texas politicians)
weapons in secret during the Clinton years and the early Bush years. If
you remember, the Iraqis were giving the U.N. inspectors the run-around
every day. Letting them inspect only *parts* of their manufacturing
facilities and only on days that they agreed on previously. What kind
of a farce was the U.N. inspections anyway? Did Iraq buy those too?
Tom in KY, won't be happy until I see a political ad from Arab TV that
looks like one of ours. With an Arab movie star or a sex driven
politician saying he can make their country strong again. Or maybe a
father and son tag team!,,,a peanut farmer anyone??
Since you have such issue with stealing, how come you're not raving
about how the govmt is stealing from just about everyone, including
future generations, but not the top 1% who they shovel money back to,
to fund this little skirmish in Irq, and various other government
programs (govmt has grown greatly under Bush) that primarily are of
benefit to corporations rather than The People?
Renata
On 01 Feb 2006 12:44:50 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
-snip
> They steal from one >group of citizens to give to another. It ironic that the same people who
>(rightfully) howl about accounting mischief like the cases at Adelphia
>and Tyco have no moral problem with half the Federal budget being built
>on a not-dissimillar scam.
>
-snip-
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dunno about the IRS boklet, but The Bush admin has very consistently
> hidden all costs of the Iraq war from general discussion of the budget.
> For example, the amount he called for for Defense in his SOTU address in
> January excluded any expenditures for the war. Not that he made this
> obvious, of course.
>
> -- Andy Barss
The reason the directly attributable costs of conducting operations in Iraq
are listed and appropriated separately is precisely so they won't "be
hidden" in the normal military budget.
You really can't hope people will think you know a lot if you give evidence
of knowing so little....
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Javier Henderson wrote:
>
>>> Note the amount spent on Defense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?
>>
>> -jav
>
>
> 'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
> budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
> not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
> money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
> Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US
> spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
> government initiative.
>
>
No, not according to the cart I saw today. It was virtually even, and
thats without iraq, afganistan, WOT, et all. These wars have not been
included in the general budget for years now since they began. First
years was the claim that we couldnt predict the cost, recently they
don't even give an excuse. But perhaps its because it would eliminate
the statement that entitlements cost more than defence. IIRC
'entitlements' were about 10-20B over defence, which would change if the
"wars" were included.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on SS to disappear. Remember, SS is a
big chunk of the taxes collected, andI don't think they want to reduce
the amount collected. I agree with killing SS from the perspective that
the government is just taking this money and has no intention of
returning it to us in the form of SS payouts.
I think the govt is trying to find a sophisticated way to keep bringing
in the SS payments but stop giving SS payouts.
Spending cuts have traditionally been the upside to 'loosing' to
Republicans. Maybe *next* time if the Greens Party or the Democrats
don't win, the Republicans will, LOL.
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
Javier Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Note the amount spent on Defense.
: Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?
Dunno about the IRS boklet, but The Bush admin has very consistently
hidden all costs of the Iraq war from general discussion of the budget.
For example, the amount he called for for Defense in his SOTU address in
January excluded any expenditures for the war. Not that he made this
obvious, of course.
-- Andy Barss
Javier Henderson wrote:
>>Note the amount spent on Defense.
>
>
> Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?
>
> -jav
'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US
spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
government initiative.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Renata wrote:
> Since you have such issue with stealing, how come you're not raving
> about how the govmt is stealing from just about everyone, including
> future generations, but not the top 1% who they shovel money back to,
The government is not "shoveling" anything back to the top 1%. The 'top
1%' of income producers pay the overwhelming *majority* of Federal
income taxes, for example. Similarly, IIRC, something like 50% of all
Federal income tax is paid by the top 5% of income earners. You need to
stop listening to Kennedy's wheezing and Dean's screaming and do a very
small amount of reading rooted in fact. My numbers above are possibly
not *exactly* correct, but they are close. The wealthy pay the vast bulk
of the freight for everyone else's addictions to government do-gooding.
> to fund this little skirmish in Irq, and various other government
> programs (govmt has grown greatly under Bush) that primarily are of
> benefit to corporations rather than The People?
>
> Renata
<Simple Instructions For Doctrinaire' Lefties Follows>
It's tax time.
Go to your tax book.
Turn to the back.
Examine the pie chart showing allocation of Federal tax monies.
Note the amount spent on Defense.
Note the amount spent on all Entitlements.
Note that Entitlements vastly overshadow Defense spending.
Bush is a fool for not using his congressional majority to gut social
spending. Insread he approved the loathsome drug benefits legislation.
He is no more a conservative than I am a brain surgeon. But as always,
the sheeple want their votes bought and paid for.
The Federal government has a Constitutional charter to defend the nation
from attack, whether it be from within or without. Defense is one of the
very few things the Federal government is actually legally chartered to
do. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to
run Socialist Security, Medi-Mooch, Wel-Im-To-Lazy-To-Work-Fare, The
Department Of Madrassas Education, and all the rest of the social
do-gooding that goes on.
You are also kidding yourself if you think Defense benefits corporations
but not "the people". This is profoundly wrong on at least three levels.
First, defense-oriented contracts *hire* lots of people and everyone
involved pays plenty of taxes. Gut the defense industry and you get
widespread unemployment for 10s and maybe even 100s of thousands of
people. (Note that entitlements hire relatively few people - government
Uncivil Servants - and mostly just *give* money and services away. No
wealth is produced nor are any taxes paid on any significant scale.)
Second, your observation is absurd because the overhwhelming amount of
corporate stock in the US is owned *by the people*. It is owned by
retirement funds, union pensions, 401Ks, IRAs and so on. When you and
your socialist brethern pee all over corporations, you are gutting the
wealth of most of your fellow citizens. Finally, you're wrong about this
because defending the nation literally benefits everyone. It makes us
incrementally safer, more able to conduct business, more secure in our
homes, and so forth.
It is a testament to just how foul the popular political Left has become
if you contrast, say, JFK with pretty much any modern Left politician.
JFK helped win the Cold War, modern Lefties aren't sure we deserve to
win *anything* at all...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Javier Henderson wrote:
>>Note the amount spent on Defense.
>
>
> Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?
>
> -jav
The summary that I saw in the paper today IIRC was very very close to
so-called 'entitlement' spending. And did NOT include Iraq or
afganistan. Bush does this every time. of course iraq and afg would
only add another 10-20%.
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
"hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
> come "almighty
> close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a
> material
> and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..."
>
> To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how
> that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that
> caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do
> so.
>
> H
It was bound to happen sooner or later whether 9/11 or the Iraq war happened
or not. I'm just hoping it will be the catalyst to push us in the direction
of lessening our dependence on getting oil from wackos.
todd
"carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>> So are we. Stay where you are.
>>
>> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
>> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>>
>> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
> witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
> Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
> Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
> his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
> thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
>
He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:%[email protected]...
>>>> So are we. Stay where you are.
>>>>
>>>> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
>>>> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>>>>
>>>> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
>>> witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
>>> Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
>>> Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
>>> his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
>>> thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
>>>
>> He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
>
> Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of
> "testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported
> on ABC News.
>
Testify in court, under oath was something of the impression the poster was
trying to give. He "stated" on Fox News. Lots of difference. I don't
generally watch TV news unless it's on local events, but I have tried Fox
News from time to time. The others are piss poor, and Fox News beats them
for lousiness hands down.
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>
> Renata
I guess the same could be said about the Left going after GWB. They seem so
inadequately prepared.
Jay Pique wrote:
> Charles Self wrote:
>>"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I respect that he served.
>>Sure you do. About as much as I respect you.
> Oh please, Charlie, you sound like thin-skinned, usenet newbie. I
> disagree with the whiny crap about the terrorists having already won,
> the war is totally worthless and the rest of the liberal crap that gets
> regurgitated. It'd be nice to think that we can all just get along,
> but that ain't reality. You disagree with the war? Fine. But leave
> the "we've changed our way of life and the terrorists have won" line of
> crap in the bottom of your 50 year old footlocker. This is America.
> We have a political system. People that have to make tough decisions
> get voted into office. GWB had valid reasons for going to war.
So much for respect...
er
--
email not valid
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So much for "there was no reason to invade":
> >
> > http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
> >
> > Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> > gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> > in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> > relevance...
>
> Come on, Tim.. it's just psysop blowback.
I just heard a black helicopter operating in silent mode ....... I think
I'll go back into my woodworking shop.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:%[email protected]...
>>> So are we. Stay where you are.
>>>
>>> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
>>> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>>>
>>> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
>> witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
>> Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
>> Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
>> his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
>> thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
>>
> He TESTIFIED on Fox News? Holy shit. Wow. That's impressive.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the various definitions of
"testify". I guess in your world, it could only be true if it's reported on
ABC News.
todd
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> So are we. Stay where you are.
>
> "Connor Aston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:op.s34ti5fdqkab0d@vigor13...
> > I'm so glad I dont live in America.
>
> A former Araqi General testified on Fox news that he
witnessed two plane loads of WMD being flown from
Bagdad to Damascus, Syria. Any one who doubts that
Sadam had more than those known to have been used on
his enenies has his head screwed on crooked. It is a disgrace that this
thread continues. How stupid can some one be????
wrote:
> The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is the same people
> who think our government could cover up 2 rigged elections,
> countless murders and the "bombing" of the World Trade Towers
> think it is impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of
> WMD.
Or why wouldn't we just plant some? If the Bush administration is such
a bunch of lying thugs wouldn't it have made sense if they had just
avoided that pesky "missing WMD" problem and "found" a few stockpiles?
A notion is often simple thing on it's surface but get's a little more
interesting as you look a little closer.
Joe Barta
wrote:
> I'm not clear on whether or not the employer contribution alone
> would be enough to tip the balance into the black, but the
> reason people will take out more than they put in (plus interest
> on what they put in) is not becuase retirees are _thieves_. It is
> because the SSAs were managed by thieves. Those are the
> same thieves who are doing the analyses to which you refer.
When you say the SSA was managed by "thieves", do you mean that
individuals working for the government illegally removed money... like
say a Burger King cashier might pilfer $20 from the cash drawer? And
if these folks would not have done such a thing, there would not be a
long term entitlement funding problem?
Joe Barta
Andrew Barss wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> : Al Quaida.
>
> : Then we could have turned our sights on Hezbolla, or Hamas
>
> Hey -- weren't they just democratically elected?
Keep in mind that they were elected mostly because the existing
government was percieved as corrupt and inneffective in providing
basic services. Hamas was elected on basically a reform/social
platform.
It's here. I think it would be wise to see how it goes before jumping
the gun and calling it a bad thing.
> And isn't that
> the desired result of the Iraq war (bringing democray the the
> Midle East)?
I'm reminded again of my old boss's wise words... "It's better to to
the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right." Let's just say the
Palestinians maybe did the right thing wrong. And given their choices,
it's hard to even argue that.
> Bush should be really pleased.
When you tell people to decide for themselves you run the risk of them
deciding something you don't like. I think Bush can handle that.
Joe Barta
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were
>the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there
>weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't
>find a reference to that specific statement.
We remember the same event differently. My recollection is that he said we
didn't find any - which isn't quite the same thing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Nope, you did Leon. Even your beloved King George has said the
>intelligence was wrong, there were no WMD.
Cite, please... I don't remember him saying that there weren't any, just that
we didn't find any.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] wrote:
> Remember Viet Nam and Nixon's "peace with honor"? After Nixon almost
> used up our Nato stockpiles, he declared agreement with the north and
> victory. And split. Vietnamization.
>
> NVA took a couple weeks to sweep the place.
>
> Your comment about Muslim sects reminds me about some common wisdom
> about the Gulf area some years back- Arabs might fight each other like
> dogs, but will attack in unison any foreign intruder. For Dubs to think
> we'd be welcomed with flowers is way beyond naive. Plain stupid.
>
> For many years to come, the highest price we will pay for our
> involvement in Iraq is the reelection of Dubs/Cheney/Rummy and
> implementation of his short-sighted policies. (Meaning, once we were
> in, many were reluctant to "change horses" for somebody with exercised
> brains.)
>
> J
>
Wow .. it took less than 30 messages to get to the "We lost the election
(twice) but we're still smarter than them, neener, neener" argument.
Well done.
Here's a dose of Reality for you. We won't know for a generation
whether this whole thing has a payoff for freedom and democracy.
You cannot undo thousands of years of tribal savagery in a couple of
years. By about 2025 we should know how the Islamic world is shaping
up...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>>
>> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>>
>>Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>>gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>>in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>>relevance...
>
>
> Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention of
> where or how the alleged WMD were made.
Also conspicuously absent from the article was the waist size
of the General in question, his sexual preferences, and his
diet plan. Clearly, the article is false on its face.
>
> Also missing is any explanation for why Saddam Hussein
> would have sent WMD to Syria on the eve of the US invasion.
> What was he saving them for, the next US invasion of Iraq?
Also missing is any explanation as to the choice of cover art
and color of the book binding. Absent a complete explanation for
every single question I may ever have, this author is certainly
not credible.
>
> Finally, let's not forget that after the Fall of Baghdad the Bush
> administration was still assuring us that they KNEW WMD were
> cached in the Sunni triangle.
Yes, they made an mistake ... no, wait! They are lying liars that
lie, lie, lie. They purposely invaded an "innocent" country because
they were bored and had nothing better to do. Then they lied about
everything that happened, hired Halliburton so Cheney could get richer,
and they did all this so we'd have really cheap oil. Am I getting
your Tinfoil Hat consipiracy theory on this about right?
>
P.S. I have no idea whether this General is telling the truth. But
the "You're a liar, neener, neener" argument is not sufficient
to discredit him or his story in my judgement.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Western Left: You are a crazy and dangerous nut, how dare
> you even suggest such a thing? You need to
> spend more time working with Cameroon to get
> permission from the UN to act in the US'
> interest. Besides you're stupid, not smart
> like us.
>
Wrong wrong wrong! At this point, democrats in congress demanded that W
return to congress and get a vote on the Iraq invasion. Anyone paying any
sort of attention remembers this and remembers that congress passed the
resolution almost unanimously. Not to mention the voluminous number of
democrats on record in the past railing against Iraq's WMD programs.
>
> ... Iraq is invaded and liberated. Millions are freed ...
>
then:
Democrats loose 2002 midterms
Democrats loose 2004 presidential
Democrats now are well on their way to a loss in the 2006 midterms with
their lack of adgenda. This will be #4 consecutive by my count running
against W.
Just sit back and laugh.
I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence:
When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to
alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices over
$4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the
fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it.
By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline
supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries.
It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy.
It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity.
Enough. Rant on.
Steve
> About the best case you can make is it might have caused $3.00/gal gas
> sooner than it would have otherwise occurred, but probably not by much.
> There is no new petroleum being made, or if there is, on a geological time
> scale. We are pumping the planet dry. When gas gets expensive enough,
> economic incentives will alternatives
> "hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
>> come "almighty
>> close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a
>> material
>> and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..."
>>
>> To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how
>> that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that
>> caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do
>> so.
>>
>> H
>>
>
>
On 29 Jan 2006 22:28:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of WMD.
>
>> We know he had them,
>
>Just what, exactly, do 'we' know he had?
>
>When, exactly, did he have them?
When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
Sounds to me like a run-up/reason to go beat up on Syria. Another pawn in the
game of Middle East chess designed to bring about The Greater Israel.
You know what happens when somebody is trying to sell a book?
Stories.... yup.. stories.
Then again... I wouldn't be surprised if they were true.
Crazy place.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>
> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>
> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
> relevance...
Come on, Tim.. it's just psysop blowback.
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>>I think your analysis is well taken and probably essentially correct.
>>But it still ignores two important things: a) Medicare/Medicaid (which is
>>is in way worse shape than Socialist Security) b) The clamor from the
>>retirees for more and more. Entitlements are built on the thieving of
>>many people, among them as you point out, the politicos themselves.
>>But let's not be too quick to exhonerate the Sheeple. The biggest lobby
>>in D.C. is the AARP which is no more- or less than a professional
>>mooching society for retirees to get what they have not actually earned.
>>This is how we get unafordable drug programs and the like.
>
>
> Well then maybe you should lobby to have
>
> "and provide for ... the general welfare" removed from the Article I of
> the
> Constittution.
>
> Or just move to some country which does not.
>
Please go back and look at the history of how these words came to be,
what they meant in context of the time they were written, and how SCOTUS
has interpreted those words in the past 225+ years. They are NOT a blank
check for government social action, they were not so intended, and they
have not been so understood by the highest courts in the land.
It was only when the Looney Left took over from FDR forward that this
clause and the Commerce Clause were taken (way out of context and intent)
to give the government permission to do whatever it jolly well wanted
to.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:27:10 -0600, Mike Berger <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Yeah, but we brought democracy to the middle east. You hate
>freedom, don't you?
Now the terrorists are elected, not self appointed.
I won't relax until we have a McDonalds a Wal-mart and a Budwieser
brewery there. THEN I will know we have succeeded.
hylourgos wrote:
> Tim wrote: "Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or
> come "almighty
> close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a
> material
> and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11..."
>
> To be fair, I think you'd have to consider gas prices at least, and how
> that affects the rest of the economy. When it went up over 200%, that
> caused no small number of dependent changes, and will continue to do
> so.
>
> H
>
In the immediate timeframe gas has gone up. But that's like saying that
bread cost more than it did in 1960. The only meaningful way to measure
this is to examine the price of gasoline as a percentage of what the
"average" houshold earns. Another way to look at it is in terms of how much
gold it would take to buy a gallon of gas (what fraction of a troy oz).
What you will discover, I believe, is that gas prices have remained
relatively constant or even *declined* slightly when measured in terms
of baseline economic indicators.
Moreover, even the immediate-term rise in gas prices cannot entirely be
attributed to the current unrest in the Middle East. Katrina compromised
the refining capacity for oil in the US. There is already a reluctance
by the oil companies to build more refining capacity and when Katrina
hit, supply/demmand did its job. Those companies are reluctant, BTW,
because they simply cannot win no matter what they do. If they build
more capacity they get accused of fouling the "delicate planet on which
we live." If they don't, they get accused of purposely constraining
supply to make "obscene profits" (even though thei rprofits have risen in
dollars, the *real* measures of economic success like return on
investment have remainded fairly stable or even *declined* slightly).
It's like the old joke that everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no one
wants to die. Everyone want cheap gasoline, but no one wants the
companies that provide it to prosper.
Most important of all, though, is that even with the proximate spike in
gas prices, the economy has just shrugged this off and grown at a very
healthy non-inflationary rate, at least in the US. (Europe continues to
pay the price for its addictions to socialism.) There are a variety of
theories for this, but at least one investment newsletter I've seen
suggests that when people have to pay more for gas, they have less
discretionary income for other things and this keeps the core inflation
rate low because demand for goods does not become overheated (Bob
Brinker/Marketimer).
The broader point is that the West does not live markedly differently
before- and after 9/11. Terrorism as a method of making war was going on
long before this. 9/11 just removed American illusions about how
insulated we were from the problem and that we could no longer ignore
it.
All this fulmination about how we've lost all our civil liberties and
that democracy is on the wane in the West is just partisan gas-passing
by the popular political Left. Most every provision and act by Blair and
Bush had been in place long before they ever came into office. In many
cases, the so-called "abuses" were far milder than what had been
weathered in the past. For example, the US overcame the internment of
the Japanese in WWII without forever becoming a totalitarian state. The
reason is simple - we Westerners truly value Liberty. We compromise it
rarely and with great trepidation notwithstanding the grandstanding of
people like Dick Durbin and Chappaquidick Ted.
My challenge stands to anyone who disagrees with this analysis: What
action by Western government - Bush in particular - has specifically
comprimised and/or changed your life in some marked way beyond anything
reasonable in a time of war and/or beyond what has been done
historically. (Hint: You cannot find an example.)
The far greater risk to all of us is the profligate spending of our
government on things having nothing to do with the preservation of
Liberty. In the US, the Federal government alone spends *way* more
on do-gooder/feelgood programs (that are outside of its Constitutional
charter) than it does on military and defense systems. This runaway
spending - by both Democrats AND Republicans) will do more harm to
"our way of life" than any terrorist ever could. If Osama wants to
*really* destroy the US, all he really needs to do is fund the AARP,
the NEA, and all the other Handout 'Hos' in Washington...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
todd wrote:
> "Steve Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I don't quite know how I sent this, but let me complete the sentence:
>> When gas gets expensive enough, economic incentives will lead to
>> alternatives. Much of the rest of the world already has gas at prices
>> over $4.00/gal and they continue to function. If we are fortunate, the
>> fundamental research will get done by the time we really need it.
>>
>> By the way, don't get me started on the wonders of hydrogen as a gasoline
>> supplement. There are no hydrogen mines or wells, no hydrogen refineries.
>> It has to be made from water, or some hydrocarbon, with a loss of energy.
>> It is at best a medium of exchange, like electricity.
>>
>> Enough. Rant on.
>>
>> Steve
>
> The last I checked, there wasn't a whole lot of gasoline wells around where
> we just walk up, attach a hose, and start pumping. Crude oil is extracted
> and refined (with the input of energy) to produce gasoline.
Yes, but the energy extracted from a unit of oil is more than what it
takes to extract it.
With hydrogen, the extraction process takes more energy that what you
end up with.
-jav
[email protected] wrote:
: Al Quaida.
: Then we could have turned our sights on Hezbolla, or Hamas
Hey -- weren't they just democratically elected? And isn't that the
desired result of the Iraq war (bringing democray the the Midle East)?
Bush should be really pleased.
-- Andy Barss
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think your analysis is well taken and probably essentially correct.
>> But it still ignores two important things: a) Medicare/Medicaid (which is
>> is in way worse shape than Socialist Security) b) The clamor from the
>> retirees for more and more. Entitlements are built on the thieving of
>> many people, among them as you point out, the politicos themselves.
>> But let's not be too quick to exhonerate the Sheeple. The biggest lobby
>> in D.C. is the AARP which is no more- or less than a professional
>> mooching society for retirees to get what they have not actually earned.
>> This is how we get unafordable drug programs and the like.
>
> Well then maybe you should lobby to have
>
> "and provide for ... the general welfare" removed from the Article I of
> the
> Constittution.
>
> Or just move to some country which does not.
I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition and
yours would be very different. You're also in full support of the part that
says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed", right? I'll just bet.
todd
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 04:23:16 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>Or why wouldn't we just plant some?
Because we would get caught. These things can usually be traced back
to the lab that made them. It didn't take long to figure out the post
office anthrax came from Ft Dietrich Md.
Of course we may not have "found" Saddam's WMD because we gave it to
him in the first place and it would point back to us or someone we
call our ally.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:15:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>>I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were
>>the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there
>>weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't
>>find a reference to that specific statement.
>
>We remember the same event differently. My recollection is that he said we
>didn't find any - which isn't quite the same thing.
The thing that amazes me about this whole thing is the same people who
think our government could cover up 2 rigged elections, countless
murders and the "bombing" of the World Trade Towers think it is
impossible that Saddam could hide a few truckloads of WMD.
We know he had them, We know we can't find them, the only question is
did he destroy them all or did he hide some?
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Charles Self wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the
>>>terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed
>>>purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close.
>>
>>Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty
>>close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material
>>and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11 except that the inept
>>airport security is now inept AND slow. Hardly the end of civilization
>>as we know it.
>
>
> The Washington DC ADIZ has all but destroyed General Aviation in
> the National Capital Area.
While that's bad news for you Cessna owners its is arguable a
trivial impact on the nation at large ... but I'll give you
that one, at least for now.
>
> Mail sent to our Congressmen and Senators is no longer opened and
> read by their staff. Think about that for a bit.
Why don't you think on it for a while. Specifically, whether they
ever paid all that much attention in the first place AND we have these
newfangled gadgets and tools called FAX, email, and telephone. What
a ridiculous example ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:29:48 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In addition do you remember the news indicating that a passenger airliner
>had been stolen and simply disappeared?
They found that 727 flying a local route in south america. Scary (no
maintenance protocol) but not that sinister.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I saw at least one press conference where a reporter asked where were
> the WMDs and Bush replied that the intelligence was wrong, there
> weren't any. But it was, IIRC, in late 2004 or early 2005 and I can't
> find a reference to that specific statement.
Oh, A personal twist on what you saw. Perhaps something not out of context
and documented.
On 30 Jan 2006 13:01:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>None of which are relevent to the issues under discussion. The
>manufacture of WMD, however, is relevent. "No factories, no
>weapons." -- David Kay.
I guess it all comes down to what is the shelf life of mustard gas, VX
and sarin.
They haven't made chloradane for 3 decades but there are still guys
with a jug in the shed
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> FDR: There are Commies in my administration but they're
>> harmless.
>>
>> ... 50 years of misery and oppression go by...
>
>
> In the US? Because if not, then one supposes FDR was right about
> his 'commies' being harmless.
Really. You don't suppose that the commies everywhere were in
collusion for a common vile cause?
>
>
>>
>> GWB/Rummy/Cheney: There is some evidence that the WMDs
>> were moved into Syria before the war.
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> According to GWB/Rummy/Cheney the WMD were moved to forward
> positions and the field commaders authorized to use them at their
> own discretion. Yet after those hastily abandoned forward positions
> were oiverrun by US/UK forces, no WMD were found.
>
> Then, after the fall of Baghdad, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney
> the WMD were hidden in the Sunni triangle.
>
> Now, according to GWB/Rummy/Cheney they were mistaken about
> Iraq's WMD.
>
> I have never seen anything from GWB/Rummy/Cheney claiming
> that WMD were shipped from Iraq to Syria.
They never claimed it, they indicated there was some evidence for it
IIRC. Oh, and by the way, the changing story you describe above is
the nature of war. No one ever goes to war with complete knowledge
and what we think we know changes as the conflict unfolds. This
is called "The Real World."
>
>
>
>> ... A former General in the Iraq Air Force - a primary
>> source of information - publishes a book describing
>> how WMDs were moved into Syria before the war ...
>
>
> That former General says he got his information second hand.
> Applying a similar standard implies that Baghdad Bob was a
> primary source.
Yes, yes, I know, The New York Times (aka "All The Fiction That's Fit
To Invent"), CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX et al, can be trust for "news",
but someone close to the events is suspect.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>
>> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>> relevance...
>
> A "primary source?" A general who alleges he was told by two pilots who
> he refuses to name. And what did they allegedly tell him?
>
> "The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted
> to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special
> Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said,
> including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."
> The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks."
>
> That's all. No claim about what was in the barrels.
>
> Sorry, I need something a bit more specific.
Like a knock up side the head? Sorry you walked right into that one.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Berger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Yeah, but we brought democracy to the middle east. You hate
>> freedom, don't you?
>>
>> Renata wrote:
>>> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>>> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>>>
>
> How long do you think freedom and democracy, such as they are, in Iraq
> will last once the U.S. pulls out? Six weeks or six months? Somewhere
> between the two is my estimate, and that might well be generous. With the
> various Muslim sects locked on each other's throats, the winner will be
> for fate to determine and unless Bush unlocks his brain, the overall
> winner is bound to be OBL.
>
> The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our
> lives extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of
> security caused, that was a win for dark side.
Yea Charlie why not bury your head in the sand and pretend it's not
happening, anyway I guess you can always let your kids try and solve the
problem . If only the previous white house occupant had taken action while
he had numerous chances none of this would have happened....
>
> I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
> going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition
> and yours would be very different. You're also in full support of the
> part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
> be infringed", right? I'll just bet.
>
> todd
>
You left out some words, something about forming a "well-regulated militia."
We have one of those. They are hard at work, where the politicians - our
King George - send them.
Steve
On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs
>of one kind or another
Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension programs.
Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers wallow up to
the trough..
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:55:42 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
>> paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
>> are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
>
>Could that be because they have no money?
But the assertion of the OP was that the "poor" were paying taxes so the
rich didn't have to. The comment, "shoveling money from the poor to the
rich ... " was what instigated this. Thus, you also invalidate the
original comment.
>
>How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
Since you asked, from the same IRS tax report (since you cut out the link
and the stats, the exercise of finding the link is left to the reader). By
the way, this is for gross income, so arguments that deductions reduce the
statistics disproportionately don't wash.
Top 1% pays 34.27% of all income taxes and has 16.77% of all income hmm,
doesn't seem to support your implied conclusion, does it?
Top 5% pays 54.36% of all income taxes and has 31.18% of all income. Nope,
they aren't on the disproportionate beneficiary list either, but let's
continue
Top 10% pays 65.84% of all income taxes and has 42.36% of all income, Dang,
your assertion just keeps getting worser and worser (as my grandmother used
to say)
Top 25% pays 83.88% of all income taxes and has 64.86% of all income
Top 50% pays 96.54% of all income taxes and has 86.01% of all income. Well,
at least your cause is helped slightly here as the data indicates that the
largest portion of all income resides in the top half of all wage earners.
However, .. before one becomes overly excited, the wage floor on that top
50% is $29k. The statistics are for *all* income tax returns filed, so
some of that bottom 50% includes returns from children living at home with
their own jobs or investment accounts as well as students attending school
with part time jobs. That $29k amounts to an approximate $14/hour wage.
This also points out that if there is any "shoveling" going on, it's
shoveling dollars from the top end of the scale to lower end, not
vice-versa.
In terms of income floors:
Top 1% $295k
Top 5% $130k
Top 10% $95k
Top 25% $57k
Top 50% $29k
Those numbers hardly represent a king's ransom for any of the upper
levels.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Renata wrote:
> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>
> Renata
>
> On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> -snip-
>
>> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
>>
>> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
>> or supports terror.
>>
>
> -snip-
BTW, are you equally outraged by the nearly trillion dollars a year
spent in the US on social wealth distribution programs for which
we will never get *any* return?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charles Self wrote:
.
>
> The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our lives
> extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
> caused, that was a win for dark side.
>
>
OK, just for fun, let's pretend this bit of rhetoric is correct (it
isn't, at least not to the degree you intimate and not by our own
doing largely). Just *what* would you prefer that the West should
have done in the face of violent terrorist attack and the promise
of more on the way? More meetings at the UN? More cultural
exchanges with the Islamic world? An apology from Bush for all
those WTC victims bleeding messily on the sidewalks of NYC?
See Charlie, *we* didn't change our lives - the little rectal
parasites working as terrorists did. So what do you propose
we *should* have done. I constantly hear *opposition* to what
was done, how Bush acted, and all the rest of the blather. I never
hear a thoughtful and viable alternative.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs
>>of one kind or another
>
>
> Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension programs.
> Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers wallow up to
> the trough..
Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
benefit."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
You want a "war", you gotta pay for it.
Renata
On 03 Feb 2006 15:44:48 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
-snip-
On 02 Feb 2006 12:14:50 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>Javier Henderson wrote:
>
>>>Note the amount spent on Defense.
>>
>>
>> Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?
>>
>> -jav
>
>'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
>budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
>not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
>money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
>Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US
Defense. Except for supplementals, the cost of deployment comes from the
Pentagon's budget. That has ramifications on procurement programs.
>spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
>government initiative.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"George" <George@least> writes:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> >When, exactly, did he have them?
>>>
>>> When he gassed the Kurds and the Iranians.
>>
>> Just what, exactly, did he use on the Kurds and Iranians?
>>
>> When, exactly, did he use them?
>>
>
>You're losing credibility rapidly if you don't know of his use of mustard or
>refuse to look it up. These are well known and documented in some very
>disturbing pictures.
>
Fred's point, for those too dense to realize it, is that both
the Kurd and Iranian usages happened close to 20 year before
Bush Jr. invaded, and 10 years before desert storm.
scott
[email protected] wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Indeed, it would seem that Mr Daneliuk is on a mailing list of some
> sort.
> (Perhaps the Pat Robertson's talking point of the week club.) Maybe
> Mark or Jaunita or Fletis could confirm that for us?
I am cut to the quick. Judging from the content of your rebuttals here,
I suspect you likely could not understand the mailing lists to which I
subscribe let alone comment upon them (but I might be wrong). And no,
not a single one is a Conservative, Neocon or Religious Rightwing list.
However, even Roberteson's insanity appears to be at least slightly
motivated by US self-interest (however badly thought through his views
are). You can a good many other commentators (here and elsewhere) appear
primarily interested in denigrating a President you do not like without
regard to the overall consequences to the West. For the record, I am not
a fan of W, I just think he's being saddled with a guilt he did not
earn, by people of callow mind and spirit (but enormous bluster), in a
time of considerable threat.
And am I consistent in these matters. I despised Clinton as a person and
as a President, but I wholeheartedly disagreed with the Rightwing attack
on him on the basis of his affair with the fat girl in the office that
made copies. It was no one's business outside his wife and God (if he
even believes in one) and Republicans were foul for doing what they did.
>
><SNIP>
>
> When the next president finally does pull US forces out of Iraq and
> the country collapses into Civil War who do you think Mr Daneliuk
> and his ilk will blame, Bush or the successor who gets stuck with
> the mess Bush left him?
>
I don't care a whit about a:) Bush's long term reputation (though I suspect
it will be far better than the Drooly Left believes) and b) Whether or
not Iraq devolves into civil war. I am intersted only in what is good
for the West, especially the US, in the short- and long term. And, no,
I don't buy the Noam Chomsky, "its all our fault, we're to blame, so
we have to fix it" school of thought.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>>
>> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>>
>>Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>>gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>>in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>>relevance...
>>
>
>
> Another example of your grasping at justification straws. A newspaper
> article is not evidence of anything. Most of the single-sources that
> were used to justify the war were wrong, or lying for various reasons;
> what makes General Sada any more trustworthy?
>
> And why does the opinion of a christian NGO matter as to the veracity
> of the General?
>
> scott
>
Let's take a leisurely stroll through history, shall we:
FDR: There are Commies in my administration but they're
harmless.
... 50 years of misery and oppression go by...
Reagan: It's time for the Commies to go.
Western Left: You are a crazy and dangerous nut, how dare
you even suggest such a thing?
... Hundreds of millions of people are free for the first
time in almost a Century.
Bush 41: Sadaam is a dangerous presence on the planet and
must be stopped.
Western Left: You're overreacting. Stop that. We'll
need more social funding for cultural exchange
because everyone knows ballet is better than
bullets when dealing with dictators.
... Sadaam's army is routed and Kuwait liberated.
.... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
or supports terror.
Western Left: It's *our* fault for not being more
multiculturally sensitive to those poor
downtrodden, cavedwelling Al Queda members.
We *told* you that more folk dancing would
have helped.
... Afghanistan is liberated and millions freed
from the groteque and oppressive Taliban regime ...
GWB: Because of our limp-wristed fiddling around (aka The
Leftwing Ballet Option) Sadaam is a growing and dangerous
threat. He has WMDs and we know he will use them
given the chance because he already has.
Western Left: You are a crazy and dangerous nut, how dare
you even suggest such a thing? You need to
spend more time working with Cameroon to get
permission from the UN to act in the US'
interest. Besides you're stupid, not smart
like us.
... Iraq is invaded and liberated. Millions are freed ...
Western Left: Well *sure* you won, but it wasn't perfect. Some
innocent people died. If just one child/innocent/
womyn/gay person/minority/underclass/underprivileged
person got killed, it means the war was wrong.
... Winning the peace turns out to be really hard because,
well, it always is. Meanwhile back in Baghdad, no
one can find: a) WMDs, b) A bunch of missing money,
c) Sadaam & Sons
Western Left: Where are the WMDs? GWB Lied! He's a Liar!
He's stupid and ugly and we don't like him and
he LIED! Why aren't you listening to us?
... Sadaam's evil children get to go to hell early ...
GWB/Rummy/Cheney: There is some evidence that the WMDs
were moved into Syria before the war.
Western Left: Where are the WMDs? GWB Lied! He's a Liar!
He's stupid and ugly and we don't like him and
he LIED! Why aren't you listening to us?
Liar, liar, liar ....
... Sadaam is captured ...
Western Left: Where are the WMDs? GWB Lied! He's a Liar!
He's stupid and ugly and we don't like him and
he LIED! Why aren't you listening to us?
... Free elections take place in Iraq - Twice! ...
Western Left: Where are the WMDs? GWB Lied! He's a Liar!
He's stupid and ugly and we don't like him and
he LIED! Why aren't you listening to us?
... A former General in the Iraq Air Force - a primary
source of information - publishes a book describing
how WMDs were moved into Syria before the war ...
Western Left: Where are the WMDs? GWB Lied ... oh, wait,
no that's not today's chant <shuffling of
papers, coughing, squirming, kicking the dust
with feet> Hey, who SOLD him those weapons
anyway???? Huh? Huh? See, we told you from
the beginning it was all *OUR OWN FAULT*.
Now, let's get back to those ballet exchanges.
The Western Right is wrong about many, many things. But they would have
to work 29 hours a day to be a pathetic, ridiculous and flatly
dangerous to civil society as the Western Left.
Stay tuned for future installations of this screed. Upcoming
chapters include:
"How Iran Learned To Love The Bomb"
"Syria: The World's Largest Parking Lot"
"Adventures Of Jimmy Carter And The Cuban Snowbirds"
"Where In The World Is Chappaquidick Ted?"
"Joe Biden Unleashed: An Expose' In 45 Volumes"
"Dick Durbin And The Case Of The Missing Brain"
"My Name Is Barak Obama And That's All You Need To Know"
"Hillary Clinton Goes To Jail (For Spousal Abuse)"
"A 12-Step Program For Recovering Lefties"
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
todd wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think your analysis is well taken and probably essentially correct.
> >> But it still ignores two important things: a) Medicare/Medicaid (which is
> >> is in way worse shape than Socialist Security) b) The clamor from the
> >> retirees for more and more. Entitlements are built on the thieving of
> >> many people, among them as you point out, the politicos themselves.
> >> But let's not be too quick to exhonerate the Sheeple. The biggest lobby
> >> in D.C. is the AARP which is no more- or less than a professional
> >> mooching society for retirees to get what they have not actually earned.
> >> This is how we get unafordable drug programs and the like.
> >
> > Well then maybe you should lobby to have
> >
> > "and provide for ... the general welfare" removed from the Article I of
> > the
> > Constittution.
> >
> > Or just move to some country which does not.
>
> I suppose it's up to what your definition of "general welfare" is. I'm
> going to go out on a limb here and suppose that the framers' definition and
> yours would be very different.
Well 'general' is a pretty broad term.
> You're also in full support of the part that
> says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed", right? I'll just bet.
You'll win.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I'm all for you getting out what you put in - but no more..
Ahhh, but that was made impossible the first time some congress critter
decided to use "surplus" SS monies to pay for his pet project.
How can you have "surplus" if what someone puts in was for themselves
when they retire?
I don't care if it was a Dem or a Rep. The moment they decided that MY
$$s were paying for someone else now, and I would be "reimbursed" by
future generations, just so they could raid the till, that became fraud.
Now, they talk of limiting benefits, raising the elegible age, etc. I
didn't know too many "contracts" that could be so easily changed by one
side, without the other's agreement.
I'm all for "getting what you put into it". so...I've been paying SS
since my first job at 16 years old. Just how much do I have in there?
Can they/WILL they tell me?
No.
Because they want to pocket more than half of what I've paid into it.
If they TRULY want to privatize SS, then it will no longer be removed
from my paycheck by the governement, and they will PAY BACK EVERY PENNY
THEY TOOK FROM ME!!!
otherwise, it is yet ANOTHER attempt to steal my hard-earned money.
No more BS, no more "creative accounting". It's high time the
government was held accountable in it's financial dealings.
They don't want the "common man" able to overdraw their finances? They
should set the first example.
And people should be able to pay for what they want.
You don't want to pay for Medicare/SS/Unemployment/etc., then you simply
will not be allowed to make use of those resources. Ever.
don't want to pay to protect a little bit of the wilderness? then,
that's fine. Just don't ever expect to be allowed into a state/fed park.
don't wnat to pay taxes? ok.
Then you can't use roads, or any other goverment-controlled resource.
It really would be that simple. You'll get to use what you pay for.
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Swingman wrote:
>> "Jay Pique" wrote in message
>>
>> > splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
>> > real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
>> >
>> > But I could be wrong.
>>
>> Of the above, there are at least two things you can most definitely rule
>> out, and at least one that is verified, by the fact that defeatist's or
>> pussies didn't make it through Marine boot camp in the 50's.
>
> I respect that he served.
>
Sure you do. About as much as I respect you.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:04:56 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Renata wrote:
>
>> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -snip-
>>
>>> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
>>>
>>> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
>>> or supports terror.
>>>
>>>
>> -snip-
>
> Why are you so absorbed by Osama? Yes, he needs to be taken out when/if
> found, but he is just one cockroach in an entire building full of them.
> Besides, the Left keeps telling us that the whole thing is *our* fault and
> that we brought it upon ourselves, so really, you can't blame Osama,
> right?
It's called "beheading". He thinks that killing Osama will so disappoint
the rest of the terrorists worldwide that they will simply lay their arms
down and go home to milk their camel -- or something.
You guys ever read the book of Daniel in the Bible? It puts an interesting
twist on current events.
The recent 'legitimazation' of Hamas may represent one of the shifts of
power mentioned. Just a guess.
Bill
On 27 Jan 2006 10:04:56 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Renata wrote:
>
>> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
>> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> -snip-
>>
>>> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
>>>
>>> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
>>> or supports terror.
>>>
>>
>> -snip-
>
>Why are you so absorbed by Osama?
You have to be kidding!?!?!
Renata
>Yes, he needs to be taken
>out when/if found, but he is just one cockroach in an entire building
>full of them. Besides, the Left keeps telling us that the whole
>thing is *our* fault and that we brought it upon ourselves, so really,
>you can't blame Osama, right?
and you also wouldn't fire a guy "who got his degree over the Internet".
You're not only foolish but pretty damn stupid too.
you got Bush beat!
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>>
>> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>>
>> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>> relevance...
>
> I indicated a couple of years ago that if you warn a terrorist government
> 6 months in advance that you are going to invade and they know there is no
> chance of stopping you, they are going to hide what they do not what you
> to see and have 6 months to do it.
>
>
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Yes, that is the problem indeed. Had the SSAs been
>>>managed properly instead of looted, we'd all be well
>>>positioned for retirement. IF retirees withderaw more
>>>than they put in it is only becuase of that mismanagement.
>>>
>>>The retirees are NOT the thieves. They are not demanding
>>>payment beyond what woudl erasonably be expected to be
>>>on account if their acounts had been managed with even
>>>the minimal degree of fiduciary responsibility the pre-
>>>Reagan era government demanded of private pensions.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well hang on a second. It is certainly true that people should have
>>the reasonable expectation of get out what they put in and doing
>>so is not theft. But virtually every analysis of the situation I've
>>read - and I grant they could all be wrong and I'd not know the
>>difference - notes that *most* people will live long enough to take
>>out more than they put in (without regard to whether the funds are
>>actually there or not - this is a technicality at this point having
>>to do with how the government funds it).
>
>
> Again, I think you wil find that every such analysis ignores both
> the employer contribution, and reasonable interest rate.
>
> I'm not clear on whether or not the employer contribution alone
> would be enough to tip the balance into the black, but the
> reason people will take out more than they put in (plus interest
> on what they put in) is not becuase retirees are _thieves_. It is
> because the SSAs were managed by thieves. Those are the
> same thieves who are doing the analyses to which you refer.
>
I think your analysis is well taken and probably essentially correct.
But it still ignores two important things: a) Medicare/Medicaid (which is
is in way worse shape than Socialist Security) b) The clamor from the
retirees for more and more. Entitlements are built on the thieving of
many people, among them as you point out, the politicos themselves.
But let's not be too quick to exhonerate the Sheeple. The biggest lobby
in D.C. is the AARP which is no more- or less than a professional
mooching society for retirees to get what they have not actually earned.
This is how we get unafordable drug programs and the like.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:15:40 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:29:48 GMT, "Leon"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In addition do you remember the news indicating that a passenger airliner
>>had been stolen and simply disappeared?
>
>They found that 727 flying a local route in south america. Scary (no
>maintenance protocol) but not that sinister.
What was any different about that 727 from any other plan flying local
routes in South America? :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mostly Social Security, Medicare and various federal pension
>>>>>programs. Those are only going to get bigger as 70 million boomers
>>>>>wallow up to the trough..
>>>>
>>>>Yup, aka "I never bothered to save from my retirement, so now I will
>>>>indebt future generations, because being a thief is OK as long as *I*
>>>>benefit."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, knock it off. I sat down one day, converted all my SS contributions
>>>into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and
>>>calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back.
>>
>>So all the analysis that shows that most people will take out more
>>than they ever put in is incorrect?
>
>
> I think if you check the arithmetic you will find that they do not
> figure
> in the employer's contribution
I think this is incorrect - or at least irrelevant - there is *no*
money. It's been spent on other social do-gooding, servicing the
resultant debt and so forth. My original point here stands: The
greatest threat to national stability comes from an out-of-control
social spending agenda lead by the senior who - as a group (individual
circumstances will vary) - want to take out far more in Socialist
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, than they *ever* put in.
or even the minimal interest one could
> get on a passbook savings account.
>
I understand this. But the fact is that there *is* no interest because
the money has never been invested. The system is polluted - we all agree
on that. But the social liberals want to fix it with *more* money instead
of helping the social conservatives turn the whole thing off (over time,
in a fair way). I get that we could have all made more money if we'd
been able to invest it ourselves, but we were not permitted to do so,
so now we have to live in the world as it is, not as we wish it were.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 5 Feb 2006 17:21:23 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> Since there was no pension for federal workers until the 30s and the
>> president didn't get a pension until 1958 I doubt the "framers" had
>> any concept of pensions.
>
>Nor did they have any concept of telecomunications yet what they had
>to say about free speech is readily applied to new media.
>
>GIven that the state of the art of aviation was ballooning, they had no
>concpet of an Air Force yet the Congress is allowed to fund one
>independently
>of the Army and the Navy.
>
>OTOH, governments have protected public health for as long as
>there have been governments. Back as far as civilization can
>be traced in all parts of the world there have been public projects to
>provide safe drinking water, and sewers. Consider also government
>enforced quarantines to prevent the spread of disease, the laws of
>kosher (originally, one supposes to protect public health) vaccinations
>and so on.
OK more bluntly, the framers never thought the government was
responsible for keeping people from starving.
[email protected] wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2006 17:21:23 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> Since there was no pension for federal workers until the 30s and the
> >> president didn't get a pension until 1958 I doubt the "framers" had
> >> any concept of pensions.
> >
> >Nor did they have any concept of telecomunications yet what they had
> >to say about free speech is readily applied to new media.
> >
> >GIven that the state of the art of aviation was ballooning, they had no
> >concpet of an Air Force yet the Congress is allowed to fund one
> >independently
> >of the Army and the Navy.
> >
> >OTOH, governments have protected public health for as long as
> >there have been governments. Back as far as civilization can
> >be traced in all parts of the world there have been public projects to
> >provide safe drinking water, and sewers. Consider also government
> >enforced quarantines to prevent the spread of disease, the laws of
> >kosher (originally, one supposes to protect public health) vaccinations
> >and so on.
>
>
> OK more bluntly, the framers never thought the government was
> responsible for keeping people from starving.
To the contrary I have no doubt that the framers would have though
measures needed to prevent famine were within the proper role
of government, under the general welfare clause.
--
Ff
On 03 Feb 2006 20:34:48 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>
>> ... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
>> stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
>> government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
>
>They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
>to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
>government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
>actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
>queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
>status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
>revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
>sort is a scam, period.
>
Kind of suspected as much. When we were in Texas, our town attempted to
get the citizens to pass an additional sales tax to pay for getting the
Dallas Mavericks to move the arena to town. Fortunately, the measure
failed by a large margin. Silliest part of the deal was seeing one of the
geekier councilmen on polling day standing outside the polling place
dribbling a basketball and bouncing it off the library wall.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 4 Feb 2006 08:52:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006 13:11:12 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> >>
... snip
You wrote:
>> >
>> >Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Modell.
>
>> Your point however, that somehow those
>> programs benefit solely the person involved is more than a bit absurd.
>
>No, you are the one who wrote that Art Modell was the
>sole beniciiciary. To attribute your comments to me
>is inaccurate.
Thus, the way you wrote, "Case in point, the football stadium built in
Baltimore FOR Art Modell" tends to imply that the sole beneficiary of said
government largess was Art Modell.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Self wrote:
> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Charles Self wrote:
>>
>>>The terrorists have already won, anyway. Once we started changing our
>>>lives
>>>extensively in an effort to cope with the problems a lack of security
>>>caused, that was a win for dark side.
>>
>>I'm sure they're basking in the glory of victory, reaping the rewards,
>>splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
>>real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
>>
>>But I could be wrong.
>>
>
>
> Don't let your pique bite your peak, Pique.
>
> Negative, sure. We're pissing away lives and money at a ferocious rate.
We sure are. 50% + of the Federal budget goes to entitlement programs
of one kind or another - far, far more than ever gets spent on defending
the nation. I say let's fix the biggest fiscal problem first. Let's
get rid of the do-gooding/mooching/I'm-an-irresponsible-person programs
right away and fix the bloated government spending problem tomorrow.
I'm with you.
N.B. Last year, the GDP grew at something like 5-6% and Federal spending
grew at over 8%. How long is that mismatch sustainable?
> What's good about that? Defeatist? Only in that we've stupidly allowed the
> terrorists to dominate our thinking for several years now. Their avowed
> purpose is to destroy our way of life. They've come almighty close.
Really? What has substantively changed in your life (or come "almighty
close") to actually changing. I challenge you to demonstrate a material
and/or large change in how we live pre/post 9/11 except that the inept
airport security is now inept AND slow. Hardly the end of civilization
as we know it.
>
> Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity.
I agree. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, Feinstein,
Jackson, Sharpton, and Durbin get far, far more publicity than their
feeble ideas deserve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
> government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
> now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
> established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
> large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
> statistics cited by M&J as being false.
Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
the government than they return in taxes.
Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
wealthy
themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
benefit.
Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
in taxes only mitigates it a little.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
> paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
> are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
Could that be because they have no money?
How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Keith Williams wrote:
>>
>> How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
>>
> How about effective tax rate by income? (2001 data is the most
> recent I could find)
>
>
> Earning Effective
> Percentile Tax Rate
> 99 - 100% 24.1%
> 95 - 100% 20.8%
> 90 - 100% 18.7%
> 80 - 100% 16.3%
> 60 - 80% 7.2%
> 40 - 60% 3.8%
> 20 - 40% .3%
> 0 - 20% -5.6%
>
That's a start, but the figures for 80, 90, and 95 include the higher
brackets. Could you attribute the numbers?
I have to wonder if that's federal income tax only, since by the time
you figure in sales taxes, state taxes, I have trouble believing anyone
has a negative tax rate :-).
And the income figures would still be nice since below a certain income,
no income tax is assessed, thus skewing the figures. For example a
couple with two children and an income of $30,000 probably would pay
little if any FIT.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You statement is baldly false in most cases. There a people who
> are wealthy that have not earned it, of course - say those who get it
> via inheritence - but they are the minority.
Two members of that and the minority that come easily to mind are the two
left bookends from Massachusetts.
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:20:17 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>Since you have such issue with stealing, how come you're not raving
>about how the govmt is stealing from just about everyone, including
>future generations, but not the top 1% who they shovel money back to,
>to fund this little skirmish in Irq, and various other government
>programs (govmt has grown greatly under Bush) that primarily are of
>benefit to corporations rather than The People?
>
>Renata
>
Just to inject a few facts into this. From the 2003 IRS data (latest year
for which the statistics are available):
Of wage earners, the top 1, 5, 10 , 25 and 50 percent of taxpayers pay the
following percent of income taxes
1% pay 34.27%
5% pay 54.36%
10% pay 65.84%
25% pay 83.88%
50% pay 96.54%
So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners are
carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls
>
>On 01 Feb 2006 12:44:50 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>-snip
>> They steal from one >group of citizens to give to another. It ironic that the same people who
>>(rightfully) howl about accounting mischief like the cases at Adelphia
>>and Tyco have no moral problem with half the Federal budget being built
>>on a not-dissimillar scam.
>>
>-snip-
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even if
> someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved, it
> becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they" achieve
> success.
>
Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your comments, however brief, are yet another example of class envy
> which, like all forms of bigotry, I condemn out of hand.
No, they are not.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> > So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
> > paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
> > are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
>
> Could that be because they have no money?
>
> How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
>
How about effective tax rate by income? (2001 data is the most
recent I could find)
Earning Effective
Percentile Tax Rate
99 - 100% 24.1%
95 - 100% 20.8%
90 - 100% 18.7%
80 - 100% 16.3%
60 - 80% 7.2%
40 - 60% 3.8%
20 - 40% .3%
0 - 20% -5.6%
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Keith Williams wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
> >>
> > How about effective tax rate by income? (2001 data is the most
> > recent I could find)
> >
> >
> > Earning Effective
> > Percentile Tax Rate
> > 99 - 100% 24.1%
> > 95 - 100% 20.8%
> > 90 - 100% 18.7%
> > 80 - 100% 16.3%
> > 60 - 80% 7.2%
> > 40 - 60% 3.8%
> > 20 - 40% .3%
> > 0 - 20% -5.6%
> >
>
> That's a start, but the figures for 80, 90, and 95 include the higher
> brackets.
Yes, that's the way it was broken out; 1,5,10% and then the
quintiles.
> Could you attribute the numbers?
Sorry, I thought I did. Try:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&sequence=0
> I have to wonder if that's federal income tax only, since by the time
> you figure in sales taxes, state taxes, I have trouble believing anyone
> has a negative tax rate :-).
It is federal income tax only. However, I believe few states have
an income tax higher than the feds. It also doesn't include FICA,
but that's money put in the "lock-box" for retirement, right? ;-)
> And the income figures would still be nice since below a certain income,
> no income tax is assessed, thus skewing the figures. For example a
> couple with two children and an income of $30,000 probably would pay
> little if any FIT.
Sure. ... and a high school kid doesn't get the EITC either.
--
Keith
Joe Barta wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
>>So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
>>paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
>>earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
>
>
>
> I suppose many have seen this. For those who have not...
>
>
> DASCHLE'S DINER
>
> Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle's Diner
> on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit
> which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every
> day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total.
> The ten meals are priced at $10 each, so the tab was $100. One hundred
> dollars each and every day.
>
> Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
> Daschle' s Diner. No sir! At Daschle's Diner the motto is "From each
> according to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So,
> each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!
>
> So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
> exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first
> four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A
> free meal!
>
> The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
> paying something.
>
> Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number seven would
> pay $7.
>
> Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the value of his meal,
> but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in
> life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and
> for a part of someone else's.
>
> Diner number nine paid $18.
>
> Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners.
> He's taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when
> the other diners were home with their families, and it has paid off.
> When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He
> forks over $59.
>
In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and the ones
on top that tend to be lucky.
> One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner
> in Daschle's Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's
> Trattoria, located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good
> and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner,
> who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the
> price of meals.
>
> The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat
> their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into
> effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner.
>
> The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the
> first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent.
> Free meal.
>
> Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price
> cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with
> the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
> "freeloader's" list.
>
I thought each man payed according to his ability. What happened to
Five's ability? You can't just change the rules in the middle of the
game can you?
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
> paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
> earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
I suppose many have seen this. For those who have not...
DASCHLE'S DINER
Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle's Diner
on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit
which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every
day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total.
The ten meals are priced at $10 each, so the tab was $100. One hundred
dollars each and every day.
Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
Daschle' s Diner. No sir! At Daschle's Diner the motto is "From each
according to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So,
each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!
So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first
four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A
free meal!
The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
paying something.
Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number seven would
pay $7.
Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the value of his meal,
but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in
life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and
for a part of someone else's.
Diner number nine paid $18.
Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners.
He's taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when
the other diners were home with their families, and it has paid off.
When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He
forks over $59.
One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner
in Daschle's Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's
Trattoria, located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good
and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner,
who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the
price of meals.
The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into
effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner.
The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the
first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent.
Free meal.
Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price
cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with
the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
"freeloader's" list.
Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is
good.
Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets
by with just $5.
Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves ever-
so-slightly into the freeloading category.
Next is diner number nine. He's still paying more than his share, but
that's OK, he's been successful (lucky) and can afford it. He pays
$12.
Now --- here comes diner number ten. He, too, wants his share of the
$20 price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52. He saves
$7.00 per day!
Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have
convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner
six spots diner ten with $7 in his hand. "Not fair!" he screams. "I
only got one dollar. He's got seven!"
Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. "I only got
one dollar too! This is wrong!" Diner even joins the rumblings; "Hey!
I only get two bucks back! Why should he get seven?"
The unrest spreads. Now the first four men - men who have been getting
a free ride all along - join in. They demand to know why they didn't
share in the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven't been
paying for their meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and
they felt that a share of the $20 savings should have gone to them.
Now we have a mob. The laws of Democracy - mob rule - take over and
they turn on the tenth diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him
to the top of a hill and lynch him.
At the bottom of the hill proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on,
and smiles.
The next day nine men show up at Dashle's Diner for their noon meal.
When the meal is over they're $52 short.
dnoyeB wrote:
> In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
> the ones on top that tend to be lucky.
You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
hours.
Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
been known to spend the night there from time to time.
I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
build his business and his fortune.
Joe Barta
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:11u76bhe8bj0646
@corp.supernews.com:
> Could that be because they have no money?
>
> How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
>
Dagnabit Larry, that would just put context to the percentages.
( :-) ) ....
--
Regards,
JT
Speaking only for myself....
dnoyeB wrote:
> I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
> fruitful.
His labor being fruitful had more to do with luck.
Who has a better chance of making a fortune... a hard working hourly
punch press operator or a hard working real estate developer? Seems to
me "luck" has very little to do with it. There are other factors that
have MUCH more influence over whether someone makes their fortune in
this world.
> There are plenty small business owners that work very
> hard and it has paid off.
Absolutely. The opportunity is there for anyone with the guts and
perseverance to do it.
> But they don't work harder than the
> people they employ.
I'd say that's complete nonsense, but I suppose that depends on your
definition of "work".
> They wouldn't stand for it.
You lost me here. Who exactly wouldn't stand for what exactly?
Joe Barta
dnoyeB wrote:
> I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
> fruitful.
His labor being fruitful had little to do with luck.
Who has a better chance of making a fortune... a hard working hourly
punch press operator or a hard working real estate developer? Seems to
me "luck" has very little to do with it. There are other factors that
have MUCH more influence over whether someone makes their fortune in
this world.
> There are plenty small business owners that work very
> hard and it has paid off.
Absolutely. The opportunity is there for anyone with the guts and
perseverance to do it.
> But they don't work harder than the
> people they employ.
I'd say that's complete nonsense, but I suppose that depends on your
definition of "work".
> They wouldn't stand for it.
You lost me here. Who exactly wouldn't stand for what exactly?
Joe Barta
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
>> paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
>> earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
>
> Could that be because they have no money?
>
> How about showing the average income for each of your tax
> categories?
It's interesting how we view taxes and who should pay what.
Let's say 5 men are stranded on an island. They find a banana. As can
be expected, they agree to carve that banana into 5 equal sections and
share it.
Let's say they make a fire, and in order to keep that fire going for
one day they need 100 lbs of wood. Again, as can be expected, they
agree that each man is responsible for gathering 20 lbs of wood per
day.
Now imagine a couple of those men get together and decide that, for
whatever reason, it's not fair that they gather their full share of
wood and that the others should carry more of the load.
Now, I understand that the notion of progressive taxation is a
practical necessity, but it's still an interesting thought. I suppose
we all have our own ideas about what's "fair".
Joe Barta
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, no, I don't buy
>> the "luck" argument at all.
>
> Cooking the books helps.
I have a friend... good guy... but he has this negativity about him.
When you talk to him it becomes clear that he sees the world in terms
of "us" and "them". "Us", is all the "regular people"... good, decent,
hardworking and honest.
"Them" is anyone that achieved any kind of success in the world
(monetary or otherwise). "Them" are the business owners and the
bosses, the leaders and the politicians and the successful
professionals.
"Them" are bad people... bad, dishonest, generally lazy, not very nice
and by simple luck of the draw are in a position to exploit the system
and exploit "us".... and they are not bashful about doing so. Even if
someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved, it
becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they" achieve
success.
If one of "them" screws up and loses his fortune, unless he has done
something extremely distasteful, he joins (or rejoins) the ranks of
"us"... and of course, the reason for his troubles is... you guessed
it... "them".
Joe Barta
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Even if
>> someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved,
>> it becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they"
>> achieve success.
>>
>
> Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.
I rest my case.
Joe Barta
dnoyeB wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and the ones
> on top that tend to be lucky.
Before we move on - have you ever actually *run* a company or at least
been in charge of a significant staff of people? Or are you just peddling
more class-envy? Class envy is beneath the dignity of any civilized
person, BTW.
You statement is baldly false in most cases. There a people who
are wealthy that have not earned it, of course - say those who get it
via inheritence - but they are the minority. The vast majority of wealth
is earned by owning/running businesses. And you are seriously kidding
yourself if you think the middle class works the hardest. "Harder", I
believe, is probably most easily measured by number of working hours
expended. (I have had jobs that involved physical labor and jobs that
were essentially mental, and the mentally-centric jobs are just as hard
to do, and perhaps more difficult. So, I don't buy the argument that
physical labor necessarily makes you a "harder worker", though every
union rep tries to sell that nonsense at contract time.) By that
measure, poor people work even harder than the middle class for far less. And the working rich
- corporate execs, business owners, etc. - work far harder than
either of them, almost without exception by this measure. I am not saying
the wealthy deserve any special commendation for their hard work - they
are handsomly rewarded for it. But the classist argument you put forth
above is just nonsense (in *most*, but not all cases).
Luck/good fortune/timing and so on plays some role in success, but it
is not the major determinant. Luck is most usually trotted out as
the basis for success by people who are not all that successful and need
to rationalize their own mediocrity or failure. I know plenty of people -
myself among them - who grew up in very meager circumstances, had no
particular connections, didn't go to the "right" schools, and still
managed to become comfortably successful. Some of these people I know
are flat out wealthy, and some are fabulously rich. So, no, I don't buy
the "luck" argument at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lobby Dosser wrote:
<SNIP>
> Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.
OK, name all the US corporations found guilty (or likely to be guilty)
of serious fraud in the past 5 years. (As opposed to those who've
had no legal problems or the problems were minor/regulatory "traffic
tickets".) Here, I'll start the list for you:
Enron
Tyco
Adelphia
Worldcom
There are probably a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.
Now, list all the companies that have had *no* legal infractions.
I won't even try to start that list because the number is likely in
the 10s of thousands.
Elevating Lay or Skilling as examples of ordinary corporate behavior is
assinine. I have worked with literally dozens of corporate leaders in my
career. Some were better at their jobs than others. Some were better
human beings than others. And, yes, some were more honest than others.
But I never noticed the distribution of ability, character, and honesty
being particularly different than other professions. I've certainly seen
plenty of dishonesty from blue-collar tradesmen, especially unionized
workers, but I don't therefore presume they mostly/all are dishonest.
Your comments, however brief, are yet another example of class envy
which, like all forms of bigotry, I condemn out of hand.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
>>So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
>>paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
>>are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.
>
>
> Could that be because they have no money?
>
> How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?
>
>
Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false. This is typical - when you lose
an argument, you and your ilk like to shift the discussion to some
subsidiary concern having nothing to do with the central premise
instead of just admitting that you are ideologically-driven without
regard to fact or Reality.
But let's play your Silly Little Marxist Game. The issue is not what the
lower wage earners pay. As you suggest, they do not have the means to do
so. The issue is what the upper category wage earners pay. They are
paying the freight for a society that knows no personal or monetary
self-retraint. They are expected to pay for every personal malfunction,
bad choice, and self-indulgence of the vast majority of the population
at-large. Are you poor and had 10 kids anyway? Tap the rich. Are you a
drug abuser and now need help cleaning up? Tap the rich. Have you
squandered your youth and middle age, failing to save for your
retirement? Tap the rich. Did you move to a place that cannot afford to
educate its young? Tap the rich. Do you like great art, but cannot
afford it? Tap the rich. Do you want radio and TV content that suits
your personal collectivist politics and none is available through
commercial outlets? Tap the rich. The list is long and putrid.
Remember, 1% of the population (just under 3 Million people in the US)
is paying over 1/3 the public services cost for about 280 million other
citizens. That is abusive, it is criminal, and it is wrong.
Even if I actually bought into the idea that it's OK for government to
be in the do-gooding business (I don't), this degree of imbalance is
simply criminal. If the top 1% have to pick up that much of the tab,
then they should at the very least get that much voice in setting social
policy, determining who gets benefits, and what behaviors are excluded
from care. We have the iniquitous arrangement that the middle-class and
poor get to decide what the government does and does not take care of
(by dint of their numbers in voting) and the wealthy get a gun stuck to
their head to pay for it whether they like it or not. This is not
democracy, it is theft.
To help you and others of your worldview get a grip on how Reality
actually operates, I suggest you go read arguably the best book ever
written on this subject. It explores just what happens when the wealthy
- the instruments of growth and properity for everyone - go on strike.
Just what would happen if that 1% said, "The heck with it, I'm not
picking up the tab for everyone else anymore. I'm going to go live in
the woods." The book is "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand and the exposition of
this question is brilliant. (For the record, I have my disagreements
with Rand in other areas, but this book is right on the numbers.)
P.S. If you cannot afford the book, I'll send you a copy...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, no, I don't buy
> the "luck" argument at all.
>
Cooking the books helps.
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
>>government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
>>now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
>>established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
>>large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
>>statistics cited by M&J as being false.
>
>
> Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
> the government than they return in taxes.
>
> Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
> wealthy
> themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
> benefit.
>
> Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
> (who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
> Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
> in taxes only mitigates it a little.
>
This is also an abomination which I (consistently) oppose. When I say No
Welfare For Anyone, I mean *No* and *Anyone*. The rich, the poor, and
the in-between should pay their own way. For those who really are in
desparate straits through no fault of their own, those of us able to
fund charity have a moral obligation to pitch in.
But this moral obligation ought not to be encoded in law. Why? For the
same reason most of us support the separation of Church and State - to
keep individual moral precepts and opinions out of the hands of
lawmakers. Note well that making "charity" a legal obligation via
taxation (at which point it stops being "charity" because it is no
voluntary) has the direct effect of putting government into the
"morality" business - something everyone who values their freedom ought
to oppose vigorously.
Government works best when it does no more than keep us free. Once you
appoint it as an arbiter of morality, then the only argument becomes
just *whose* morality ought to be sanctioned by law - i.e., You get the
infernal mess we have today, an inefficient, wasteful, and ineffective
system of "charity" built on a reprehensible system of thieving wealth
distribution.
Worse still, once the government has our permission to act "morally" in
one area, it quite naturally expands its reach into any other place that
can be imagined. So, if you support social causes at the point of the
government's gun, don't howl when a different "morality" is in power and
jams *their* moral ideology down your throat - you opened Pandora's Box.
So when W and company start trying to draw lines around what constitutes
"marriage", what drugs are OK or not, the use of public funds for "Faith
Based Charity" and all the rest, just remember: The popular political
Left cranked that door wide open with the ascent of FDR's socialist
state and all that followed.
P.S. I am personally both quite devout in my religious beliefs and
a firm believer in the importance and efficacy of private charity.
That said, I am *wholly* opposed to government action on the basis
of some imagined school of morality. I don't want the religious Right,
the secular Left, or the heathen Atheists defining the agenda of
the Free West. I want the cause of Liberty to be our sole
governmental agenda...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Joe Barta wrote:
> dnoyeB wrote:
>
>
>>In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
>>the ones on top that tend to be lucky.
>
>
> You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
> industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
> Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
> hours.
>
> Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
> over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
> paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
> fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
> been known to spend the night there from time to time.
>
> I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
> build his business and his fortune.
>
> Joe Barta
I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
fruitful. There are plenty small business owners that work very hard
and it has paid off. But they don't work harder than the people they
employ. They wouldn't stand for it.
--
Thank you,
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> Nope, you did Leon. Even your beloved King George has said the
> intelligence was wrong, there were no WMD.
Yeah the intelegence indicated Iraq IIRC. Then they were moved to Syria.
> Do you think he'd have admitted that if there'd been the slightest
> possibility they'd been shipped elsewhere?
Since they were told Iraq, Yes I do.
>
> Do you really believe that no Iraqi in the whole country would have
> blown the whistle to the army units searching for them if they had been
> shipped or hidden?
Many did. I believe that is how we learned about them in the first place.
>
> Wishful thinking, Leon - that source is just promoting his book.
No, It only confirms what I have believed from the beginning. Give some one
6 months warning that you are coming after his WMD's and he is going to hide
them. I suppose a swallow of what is in the containers is the only thing
that will ring true with you.
Renata wrote:
> After almost 5 years and one Trillion dollars, the perpetrator of that
> act still runs around free, with virtually no interst by GWB.
>
> Renata
>
> On 26 Jan 2006 23:34:58 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> -snip-
>
>> .... 9-11 Murders Take Place ...
>>
>> GWB: We will find and kill anyone who partipates or
>> or supports terror.
>>
>
> -snip-
Why are you so absorbed by Osama? Yes, he needs to be taken
out when/if found, but he is just one cockroach in an entire building
full of them. Besides, the Left keeps telling us that the whole
thing is *our* fault and that we brought it upon ourselves, so really,
you can't blame Osama, right?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Dale Scroggins wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> So much for "there was no reason to invade":
>>
>> http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=26514&access=569798
>>
>> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>> relevance...
>>
>>
> I notice that similar posts have appeared in other usenet groups (OT, of
> course). Different authors. Nothing official, or in the popular press.
> Can't even find a mention on Drudge.
>
> If this were indeed a "primary source" (as I read it, the General only
> claims second-hand knowledge) and our threat of attack resulted in the
> scattering of chemical and biological weapons throughout the Mideast, I
> can't imagine how this can help the administration. Or reduce the peril
> of such weapons falling into terrorists' hands. If Mr. Daneliuk's claim
> is true, then it deals a disastrous blow to the claim that the
It is not *my* claim - it is the recording of a story told in a new
book.
> administration is competent to protect us from chemical or biological
> attack. Why were we unable to contain and destroy those weapons, Mr.
> Daneliuk? Poor intelligence, poor planning, lack of resources? Or was
> it Clinton's fault?
Yes, yes, I know, Bush must meet a far higher standard than any other
president. He must execute the war on terror (which he inherited from
generations of presidents who did nothing or not enough) *perfectly* or
its all his fault. Bush is a flawed president - deeply so in some respects -
but listening to his opponents squeal make him look like a genius.
>
> Dale Scroggins
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 29 Jan 2006 01:44:54 EST, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>Charles Self wrote:
>
>> "Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Charles Self wrote:
>>>
> ... snip
>> Grumpy? Only when assholes get too much publicity.
>
>I agree. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, Feinstein,
>Jackson, Sharpton, and Durbin get far, far more publicity than their
>feeble ideas deserve.
You definitely have a point there. If you were to take someone who had
been asleep the past 20 years, or from some isolated place and plopped them
down in the US and let them watch the news for a few days, then asked them
who's in charge, you'd probably get:
They'd identify that Bush is president, but would probably identify
Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden as the leaders in the senate that
that they are in charge. Same in the house, Nancy Pelosi and crew would be
identified as the leaders of the house. Very seldom do you see reports
regarding what those in the majority in the house and senate are doing, the
news is mostly focusing on the speeches and commentary from the minority
party.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>
>>> Long suspected, now confirmed by a *primary source*. Let us now
>>> gather to watch the Western political Left once again deny Reality
>>> in a desparate last gasp to retain anything slightly resembling
>>> relevance...
>>
>> A "primary source?" A general who alleges he was told by two pilots who
>> he refuses to name. And what did they allegedly tell him?
>>
>> "The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted
>> to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special
>> Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said,
>> including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."
>> The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks."
>>
>> That's all. No claim about what was in the barrels.
>>
>> Sorry, I need something a bit more specific.
>
> Like a knock up side the head? Sorry you walked right into that one.
>
>
I guess now we have about the same situation in Iran everyone wants to jump
in including most top Dems plus the europeans . If we do go
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I indicated a couple of years ago that if you warn a terrorist government
> 6 months in advance that you are going to invade and they know there is no
> chance of stopping you, they are going to hide what they do not what you
> to see and have 6 months to do it.
In addition do you remember the news indicating that a passenger airliner
had been stolen and simply disappeared?
"Dale Scroggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd wrote:
>> tes·ti·fy (tst-f)
>> v. intr.
>> 1.. To make a declaration of truth or fact under oath; submit
>> testimony: witnesses testifying before a grand jury.
>> 2.. To express or declare a strong belief, especially to make a
>> declaration of faith.
>> 3.. To make a statement based on personal knowledge in support of an
>> asserted fact; bear witness: the exhilaration of weightlessness, to which
>> many astronauts have testified.
>> 4.. To serve as evidence: wreckage that testifies to the ferocity of
>> the storm.
>> I wish I had your clairvoyance to know that he was using the first
>> definition and not the third.
>>
>> todd
> The General's statements did not meet your third definition. He had no
> personal knowledge of the events he described; he was repeating what
> others had told him. It doesn't take clairvoyance to determine that
> "testify" was the wrong word, chosen for reasons other than accuracy.
>
> Dale Scroggins
Since you want to split hairs, it could just as easily be def. #2.
todd
"Jay Pique" wrote in message
> splitting the spoils....errr...something like that. You sound like a
> real pussy to me. Defeatist, negative, grumpy and old.
>
> But I could be wrong.
Of the above, there are at least two things you can most definitely rule
out, and at least one that is verified, by the fact that defeatist's or
pussies didn't make it through Marine boot camp in the 50's.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:29:48 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In addition do you remember the news indicating that a passenger airliner
>>had been stolen and simply disappeared?
>
> They found that 727 flying a local route in south america. Scary (no
> maintenance protocol) but not that sinister.
OK.